Unified State Exam: triumph as tragedy

Before the start of today’s big meeting about the Unified State Exam, Putin would like to sum up some results.

The leitmotif of the entire Unified State Exam campaign this year is: “Get in! The Unified State Exam assignments are already online!”

The bosses, management and other responsible persons are outraged. There are now the usual year after year conversations about morality. Last year, if I remember correctly, even the patriarch got involved. This year, the communists have joined the usual list of responsible persons and education officials outraged by “immoralism.”

I can’t understand: what, exactly, are you unhappy with?

This year’s Unified State Exam is, on the contrary, a triumph, a victory for the entire Fursenko reform of secondary education, a victory for the Lebanese-Fursenko principles of educational policy.

Remember?

Fursenko: “...The shortcoming of the Soviet education system was the attempt to form a creative person, and now the task is to cultivate a qualified consumer who is able to skillfully use the results of the creativity of others.”

Livanov: “Now value in education is the ability to find information, comprehend it, draw conclusions and apply it.”

So here we need to rejoice and congratulate each other, and not express dissatisfaction. The turn of the entire outdated knowledge-oriented Soviet school to the realities of the present day has been accomplished!

The Ministry of Education and Science must be commended: Russian schoolchildren have successfully made the transition to using the information and creativity of others.

After all, this is precisely what was stated as the goal, as the main value.

Where does the dissatisfaction come from, why are the results of schoolchildren who exactly follow the instructions of those who determined the educational policy of recent years canceled?

This is some kind of nonsense.

On the contrary, these students should be given certificates and rewards not only for an adequate understanding of goals and objectives, not only for their strict implementation, but also for turning from an abstracted knowledge model to practice-oriented competencies. Without bothering their heads with abstract and completely unnecessary knowledge in our age (they have a hard drive for it), they solve the problem of admission not as an educational task, but as a life one.

Isn’t this what our innovators dreamed of when they called us to a new school in the 80s?

Here it is, the end of the long torment of pedagogical and educational-bureaucratic creativity, the end of a long search! Finally, we began to receive a new modern student in large quantities, finally we put him into mass production.

We must send congratulatory telegrams, we must write victorious articles in newspapers and consolidate this experience in every possible way.

Why is this triumph perceived as a tragedy?