Standard as a sentence

Yesterday, the Ministry of Education finally presented the professional standard of a teacher to the public.

This case was supervised by E. Yamburg, so in ideological terms there is a lot that he voiced more than once in his voluminous articles in Novaya Gazeta and at meetings of the Public Council under the Ministry of Education and Science.

I'm not against standards. On the contrary, both hands are in favor. The standard is clear rules of the game, an honest statement of intentions, help for those who are incapable of autonomy and self-regulation, and who need a “cane” in the form of such documents in order to lean on it whenever necessary.

But, approving the very idea of ​​a standard, we must always remember that the standard is valuable not only because it should give educational policy not only clarity and abstract unity, but also the right direction.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about this standard in its original form.

I am amazed that E. Yamburg, who has been speaking all these months as one of the few defenders of teacher education, is in fact putting an end to it.

In the justification of the standard we read:

— The standard is a tool for implementing education strategies in a changing world.

— The standard is a tool for improving the quality of education and bringing domestic education to the international level.

— The standard is an objective measure of a teacher’s qualifications.

— The standard is a means of selecting teaching staff for educational institutions.

— The standard is the basis for the formation of an employment contract that fixes the relationship between the employee and the employer.

In the characteristics of the standard itself we see:

The professional standard of a teacher is a framework document that defines the basic requirements for his qualifications.

What does the standard require first of all?

The teacher must:

1. Have a higher education.

Note not higher pedagogical , but simply higher .

Considering that the standard is a document defining the nature of specialist training and teacher hiring, this is the key point in the content of the entire standard.

In essence, this point abolishes pedagogical education as such, as a special type of education in general. Anyone who has a higher education diploma can come to the school.

Yes, of course, the future teacher will have to take courses in cutting and sewing teaching methods and didactics in order to meet the requirements of subsequent points of the standard. But such “young fighter” courses of 5-10 classroom sessions and a mandatory essay are unlikely to be able to replace specialized training for teachers over 4 or 5 years.

Such a replacement will be all the more possible, since the requirements of the standard are not clear and definite. Well, for example:

4. Effectively manage student behavior to ensure a safe learning environment.

The demand is correct, appropriate and fair. however, what is hidden behind the term “effective”? If you tie everyone to chairs, then this will also be quite effective and will fully meet the requirements of the standard.

Some formulations are not only puzzling, but also at odds with basic common sense:

1. Willingness to accept different children, regardless of their actual educational capabilities, behavioral characteristics, state of mental and physical health.

It sounds beautiful and humane, but that’s all. In practice, this means that the teacher will be forced to work with a rather diverse public - from advanced and calm nerds to students with problems of a clearly psychiatric nature, this means that we will not have special schools and special pedagogy.

Here, the idea of ​​the specifics of the work of a teacher in a regular school, where he deals with children who do not go beyond the norm, and the specifics of the work of a teacher in educational institutions for children with developmental delays is actually erased.

Teachers are required to be a jack of all trades.

But isn't that too much for the money?

And isn’t it at odds with considerations of pedagogical expediency and specialization of pedagogical work in the name of greater effectiveness?

In general, as can be seen from the standard, its introduction will entail not only the abolition of regular pedagogical education, but also the elimination of what can be conditionally called special pedagogical education.

Yes, there are special knowledge requirements. But their abundance, the thirst to turn a teacher into a universal transformer, will most likely bring down the entire education system. Without teacher education as such, without clear specialization within the teaching profession, without maintaining the division between special educational institutions (and the standard indicates that it will be abolished), nothing good awaits us.

The standard must be rewritten, if only because in its current form it forces teachers to take the rap for the imperfection of the entire society, for the imperfection of all policies in education. Are there many people looking for such a role?