“The state violated the contract with the educational community”

Print Yaroslav Kuzminov

Why was it necessary to introduce the Unified State Exam, what functions should it perform?

The Unified State Exam is an independent quality assessment system - independent of those who teach and those who admit students to the university. In the Soviet Union, and even later, we had a system where society seemed to completely trust the educational staff - both the school and the university. They were accustomed to this trust, and naturally, the deprivation of trust was perceived painfully. And not only by people who lost some share of their income due to this, but by all members of our corporation. However, the educational system cannot develop in a closed state. Various forms of such external control are already present almost everywhere.

Why did the Soviet system manage without this?

Interest Ask. It seems to me because the Soviet educational system itself was merged with the state. In principle, this meant that in the view of society, in the view of the country’s leadership, the school did not exist as a special unit. That is, in fact, the state controlled itself - and then there was strict control, stricter than now. The school was looked after by the "big boss" - POHO inspectors, and POHO representatives were present at the exams. There was an educational vertical, one of the elements of which was the school. How could this still be maintained despite all the restrictions and quotas - on workers, Komsomol members, Jews, Germans, etc. - and did not cause such resentment, public discontent, such a level of corruption as it does now? The fact is that in Soviet times there was a fairly well-organized professional community - both at school and at university. Still, a person who began to openly engage in corruption (I’m not talking about individual southern regions) was quickly thrown out by the community. Because under the Soviet regime a fairly effective contract was maintained with teachers. That is, the relatively decent money that the teacher received, coupled with the then scarce non-material remuneration, freedom - and he clearly had more freedom than other participants in the production or administrative process - all this was enough for those who simply liked to teach others, who highly appreciated this type of activity itself. And the built-in mechanisms of the professional community restrained the negative manifestations that we see now.

What happened in the 90s? The state's contribution to education fell three to four times. The relative wages of the people who work there have also fallen. Intensive extinction of the professional environment and erosion of professional morality began. By the early 2000s, education had become one of the four or five most corrupt sectors. That is why external quality assessment became necessary - the professional community was blurred and could not guarantee justice for society. And society traditionally expects fairness from the education system, assessment of abilities, regardless of acquaintance or wallet. It was necessary to introduce an external measure of the abilities of those applying for scarce levels of education.

Was it, generally speaking, possible to do without a single exam, without breaking into our usual china shop with a crowbar? Yes, but subject to full and adequate funding of higher education - read, a fourfold increase in salaries in education, from 66% of the economic average to 200-250%. But, unfortunately, the company did not fulfill its obligations under the contract. It did not fund education sufficiently for the professional community to exist and maintain quality itself.

As far as I understand, the Unified State Exam is a dual event. It combines, so to speak, final and future functions. On the one hand, it is intended to assess the graduate’s knowledge acquired at school, on the other hand, it helps to find out whether he is able to continue studying in his chosen specialty. The tasks appear to be heterogeneous. For those who do not intend to continue their studies, the Unified State Examination assessment loses its meaning altogether, doesn’t it? And the “prospective” component of this assessment also raises questions. Apparently, the university should be interested in this assessment not as a litmus test that allows identifying future students (“this is our man!”), but as a kind of filter with which one can weed out those who are obviously unsuitable. After all, it is unlikely that everyone who has passed this exam even at level C will be accepted into the Mechanics and Mathematics program. Or will they be accepted?..

I can say that the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics usually accepts them based on the results of the Olympiads that it organizes. It’s the same at HSE - about a quarter of our students, like at Moscow State University, by the way, are Olympiad winners.

This means that your doubts are confirmed: you allow your own tests in addition to the Unified State Exam.

But Olympiad participants also take the Unified State Exam. Moreover, the correlation between the results of the Olympiads and the Unified State Exam is almost one hundred percent. That is, those people who take first place in federal olympiads have a score of 95-100 in the corresponding Unified State Exam subjects.

Then why do we need the Olympics?

I can say that I have always insisted on the need to hold Olympiads along with the Unified State Exam - for those universities that have a serious reputation and do not want to lose it. With the Olympics, this problem is completely removed. In addition, the Olympiad forms a very real layer of incentives for applicants. After all, the Unified State Exam, if this is the only mechanism for enrollment, has one negative feature. It shows the ceiling that you have reached - you have mastered the material and received, say, your A, or a hundred points, and that’s it. The Olympics should encourage children to be creative and to go beyond the school curriculum. The point of the Olympiads is to create broader motivational horizons for schoolchildren. So that they invest not only in mastering, but in overcoming, surpassing the school curriculum. Otherwise, we will put a ceiling on our entire intelligentsia, and this denies the very concept of the intelligentsia.

Now regarding why the Unified State Exam is needed for those who do not intend to go further. The Unified State Exam is a fairly multifaceted instrument and has many uses. One of its basic functions: a signal to parents to choose a school. In many countries, USE results are published in newspapers. And based on this, people choose where to go to study.

That is, this is an assessment of specific schools.

Yes, a specific school and level of teaching a specific subject. That is, parents are given guidelines on which school to choose, where to change teachers, and so on. As soon as a school is given the opportunity to assign all its own grades, we are deprived of any criterion.

Does this mechanism work in our country?

It has already begun to work, in those cities where the Unified State Exam has been held for more than three years, they have already begun to focus on these indicators.

And yet, should there be some kind of selection procedure in addition to the Unified State Exam in elite universities? Evgeny Fedorovich Saburov proposed such an algorithm, ideal from his point of view: all applicants must pass two single exams - in two languages, Russian and mathematics, since he treats mathematics as a special language. After this, the applicant undergoes an in-depth interview to find out his motivation: why he chose this particular profession. The interview is in-depth, thorough, but in a free form.

At the same time, there is no need to take into account his knowledge, say, in history, if he enters the history department, or in chemistry, if he enters the chemistry department. That is, again: the Unified State Examination is only a filter, a screening method. But this doesn’t really solve the recruitment problem.

The feelings of Evgeniy Fedorovich are very close to me. Let's say the Higher School of Economics has an interview institute like Physics and Technology. Leading professors of the department talk with those who score a semi-passing grade. But, you see, there is a “side” effect here. The Higher School of Economics, I think, is one of the most famous universities. Taking into account the results of the Olympiads that we host, about six thousand people a year come to us to enroll. Imagine the situation. Moreover, a panel of six people should conduct the conversation to ensure the objectivity of the assessment. They need at least 20 minutes for each person, otherwise it’s not a conversation, agree. Technically this is impossible. From the very beginning, the Higher School of Economics was formed as a capable professional community. Moreover, the people who gathered here clearly initially had more ambitions than receiving a bribe would suggest. And yet, in 1997, we switched to a completely impersonal format of written tests, which has now spread throughout the country. Although they completely trusted themselves, I say it again. Because - well, I cannot ensure the fairness of such results. Because as soon as we gained minimal fame, the area of ​​tutors grew, and in just a few years, prices for admission to our school appeared. You know this from other universities. We debated for a long time, at first I held exactly the same position as Sadovnichy, an opponent of the Unified State Exam, but now every HSE professor will repeat to you: “With mass assessment, there is no other way except anonymous tests.” They ensure not only the minimization of corruption, they ensure the comparability of results. Of course, we understand that they are not perfect, we are missing someone.

You only talk in borderline cases.

Yes, this is one or two percent whose fate is decided. And usually we hire more people at our own expense, but we have to look at who are we spending our money on? And in the selection for budget places, we act more formally, through the Unified State Exam or an almost completely corresponding written test from the HSE itself, because this system is transparent and fair. And no one has yet said that the selection process for our university is bad. Our admission - from a quarter to a third - goes through the federal Olympiads, where we take the cream of the crop, that is, people who think outside the box, who have read more, relatively speaking. And we pass the rest through standard state exams in the form of the Unified State Exam. And colleagues from the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, who are afraid: ten thousand people will come, how will we choose, they simply forget that they have no less than one hundred points for evaluation. One hundred people all over Russia receive one hundred points in mathematics, and several hundred are admitted to the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics. That is, there is no problem if you trust this criterion. If you don't trust him, you need to look at why you don't trust him. Maybe it's the quality of the CMMs? Let's then offer Rosobrnadzor our options. I believe that we will always have the Unified State Exam and federal Olympiads as the main form - and not only for assessing school results. We will not deliver everyone to Moscow or, say, St. Petersburg for an interview. Agree, ego is not good for the country's leading universities.

Let's move on to technical questions: does the Unified State Exam evolve, does its structure change over time? To what extent does this framework apply to humanities subjects?

In my opinion, the experiment on the Unified State Exam was carried out too unambiguously, and the evolution of the Unified State Exam is going too slowly. There are explanations for this. Supporters of the unified approach, primarily Viktor Aleksandrovich Bolotov, convincingly, in my opinion, prove that we have such a system that only something completely unambiguous can be controlled and approved as a tradition. We have a very weak scientific professional community. If you offer three or four options, it will simply scatter and nothing will be created. But I, like many other colleagues, believe that it would be more useful to try different methods, different measurement options - and only then choose the best one. In 2001, it was decided that there would be a Unified State Exam. And already in the first year of its implementation, we made a statement that it would be necessary to make the types of tasks variable, to test the relationship between a detailed answer and closed questions. Society, as you know, has been discussing the Unified State Exam in several humanities subjects, primarily literature and history, for quite some time. In my opinion, the Unified State Exam in both literature and history is possible. Moreover, for literature this is generally the only way out, because no one in the country has ever believed that essays are objectively evaluated. There is no need to abandon the Unified State Exam, and let external independent experts check the work. Yes, it will be a subjective view, but at least it will not be directed subjectively. After all, what are the opponents of the Unified State Exam in Literature fighting against? They say it is wrong to judge knowledge of the literature by a set of facts. Even knowledge of history cannot be assessed by a set of facts. I need to get back to writing. I fully support them. This essay should be checked not by representatives of the university, knowing who they are checking, but by randomly selected people who will not squint at the last name. This is how it will be, I think, quite normal.

But isn’t there already an essayistic part in the Unified State Examination in the Russian language?

She is. But what's the problem? A person who takes the Unified State Exam is fixed on the first two parts. If he writes poorly, he won’t even get a C. And the majority - either 70 or 60% - do not have the strength left for the third part. It turns out to be a crooked picture. I believe that there should be a separate exam for these two subjects, literature and history, where creativity and style are required. At the same time, the Unified State Exam must necessarily evolve; it is in dire need of updating its methods. Then in society, in the pedagogical community, it will be possible to achieve broader agreement than now. Because many colleagues do not dismiss the fact of an independent exam, they deny the specific format. And it seems to me that the authorities need to listen to those who are talking about this.

What forces hinder evolution?

State machine. It’s easier for her to do something monotonous.

That is, you think that the transformation of survey methods and forms is happening slowly and should be carried out on the basis of a more daring experiment?

Yes. And there should be greater dynamism. Do you know why? There are additional arguments in favor of this. After all, our people adapt to the form very quickly. As soon as our form ossifies, schools begin to train students. Previously, they taught students how to write a final essay, so let’s not assume that a catastrophe occurred with the advent of the Unified State Examination . But the general normal forms of education - they still have to constantly run ahead. There needs to be a healthy element of uncertainty. It seems to me that this healthy element of uncertainty is not expressed enough.

How is the Unified State Exam moving across the country? How do different social groups feel about the current state of affairs with the Unified State Exam? Is there some kind of redistribution of opinions taking place, is the number of opponents decreasing?

This is the movement. The Unified State Exam is supported by a social group located in remote cities; a social group that is not in the top two income deciles. That's who chooses the Unified State Exam.

What about social groups: the teaching community, faculty, parents?

The picture for communities is approximately as follows. The biggest opponents of the Unified State Exam are the intelligentsia of the largest cities. She opposes the Unified State Exam because it reduces the chance for their children to get a free education at a good university. It’s clear: because these families, taking advantage of high transport costs and high uncertainties of entry, occupied more places than they honestly belonged to. That is, their C students enter places for good students, etc. The Unified State Exam gives greater opportunities to those who are at a distance, and for Muscovites, for St. Petersburg residents, for Nizhny Novgorod residents, the chances are reduced, so they go against the Unified State Exam. Why did Luzhkov suddenly become so opposed to the Unified State Exam? He's just a very sensitive mayor. Naturally, he understood what everyone sees and understands. But Muscovites are objectively against the Unified State Exam, because, excuse me, in Moscow under the Soviet regime there were 25% Muscovites in Moscow universities. And now - 75.

Now, at the time of the introduction of the Unified State Exam?

Of course, there is something to fight for. After the introduction, I think it will be about one to one. If you read our forum, the statements of parents of Moscow schoolchildren, there are whole sociological speeches there. “These are our places, we have been preparing for so long... We arrived, we came in large numbers,” and so on. All this is very significant. And we must understand: this is an absolutely objective thing, this is not a conspiracy of tutors. These are the real interests of people who are pushed out of a favorable niche, equalizing them with others. Now regarding individual groups. For teachers, statistics initially showed an uncertain relationship. Then the teachers began to peak in denial. Because for the first time they themselves began to be assessed according to the Unified State Exam. This was unpleasant for many. Well, because the sustainability of their existence is undermined. For the first time they began to be checked, relatively speaking. And now it is on the decline. They get used to it, get used to it: we’ll live like this. There was discontent among teachers - but after the peak of negativity, it is now gradually declining.

Let's turn to the economic side of the matter. What's happening at the moment? Tutoring in one form or another requires out-of-school assistance; is there a redistribution of financial flows between groups? After all, previously, university teachers coached and taught, but now, apparently, this role has passed to teachers - to prepare for good passing the Unified State Exam. And is there any personal interest in the current approval of the Unified State Exam by teachers - in addition to the habit that you mentioned?

Let's distinguish between two things: preparation for the Unified State Exam and corruption. Corruption is a criminal act aimed at taking money for help in taking someone else's place. As for the corrupt officials, everything is clear with them. They were always only where there was a narrow neck. And in this regard, there was no increase in corruption - well, there was corruption in the school, yes. Unfortunately, she is.

Well, what kind of corruption is there in school?

Eat. For the best attitude. We just didn’t know to what extent it existed. And with what numbers? To what extent does the Unified State Exam bring additional corruption to schools? Not at all. Teachers do not have the opportunity to guide their students through the Unified State Examination. Does family money from tutors go to the school? Of course, they are switching - objectively, since now they need to invest more in mastering the school curriculum. But note - not for school grades. It’s just that opponents from higher education claim that corruption has now moved to school - this is nonsense and stupidity. People don't understand what they're talking about. And the fact that family payments will be transferred to the school, of course, will be transferred. Sorry, they are two or three times cheaper. In our country now, in the last years before the introduction of the Unified State Exam, the time of a university teacher costs $150 per hour, and lessons from a teacher not from this university cost $50 per hour. That is, $100 is a corruption bonus. Of course, people who are used to receiving 10-20 thousand dollars per season are now, to put it mildly, not very happy. They specialized in this, for them it is just a personal tragedy.

To what extent does the score on the Unified State Examination correlate with the current final grade of students before passing the Unified State Exam?

You know, schools are starting to get better and better at passing the Unified State Exam. The school is gradually adapting to this process. There is a more serious question: does the Unified State Exam reveal the real diseases of education? Yes, in general, it does. Although this has not yet come to the surface. Of course, ask any person who is involved in education: what is the real level of two? And he will name - from 20 to 30%. But the Unified State Examination scale is now constructed in such a way that these twos are hidden in threes. Schools do the same thing, absolutely the same thing. Because the people responsible for it are afraid. The school director is afraid that he will be removed. And the heads of regional education (and federal education, to be honest) are afraid that their work will be considered unsatisfactory by their superiors. They are afraid to cross the figure of the old indicator. Yet everyone sees and understands everything. In fact, the Unified State Exam can be used as a tool for cutting off education of unsatisfactory quality: bad schools, and graduates who have not learned anything and do not need to be given a certificate. They didn't earn it. There are quite a lot of these people; our school has about 20% of obvious defects in core subjects. But now such people are given a certificate. And quite a few of them go to universities. Although, by definition, they cannot study at a university. People with forty points in mathematics go to an engineering university. So I don’t want to fly on domestic air transport... This is a system of lies that is needed only by bureaucrats and corrupt officials.

This was the case before the Unified State Exam...

This was the case before the Unified State Examination, and this is now the strained result of the Unified State Exam – to maintain the state of affairs. Why do they pull? Because everyone is afraid. At first they were afraid to undermine the experiment: oh, if they get scared, the experiment will be closed. I don’t know what they are afraid of now. Now everyone knows and is widely discussed: in reality, 20% are Fs. This, I will say, is at the very, very minimum estimate. We are actually talking about poor students who were given a C grade. Now is the moment of choice. Either we will start making honest assessments and using litmus tests, or we will completely drown. If a person has two points in Russian and two points in mathematics, he cannot study further. You don’t have to check other items anymore, right? He can neither speak nor count. Andrei Fursenko came up with a similar idea: if you score 40 points on the Unified State Exam, you do not have the right to study at all - you do not have the right to apply to a university at all. Sit and study until you retake it. And 60 or 65 points means you do not have the right to apply for a state grant, in other words, to apply for a budget-funded place. And I think this is absolutely correct, we need to move on to this.

“Legislation is the work of human hands.” “Hone the evaluation criteria”