Translated material
Bureau of good (educational) services
Candlers reflecting on what will change at school with the onset of paid educational services. physical mat. Sciences, head of the department of mathematics of the boarding school "Intellectual" Alexei Sibnev .
There was a rumor that from next year all the training hours in schools over the basic will become paid. It’s easy to believe in this rumor, as too many papers are accepted and propaganda statements have been expressed - the soil is preparing. Paid educational services are rapidly bursting into the life of schools, in which there are specialized objects and circles. But many teachers are smoking from this term itself.
It seems that no one argues that there is a difference between the study of a generally binding story in grade 6 and English courses for managers. But both are called the same term “educational service”.
Of course, general school education is not a service, but a response to a social order. And the state decided to limit itself in this area by a minimum-they say, to read-write, and then understand for yourself, this is your private business and your money. It seems to be the freedom of choice and is good, only the state takes off their social obligations-teaching talented children and children with disabilities falls on the shoulders of parents. But these are the “lands”, and there are also practical difficulties from planting services for a mass school. For example, economic.
For some reason, it is believed that the teacher to whom more children came more should receive more. This is called “personality-oriented financing” in a like, in translation-“better goods-more buyers”. As if all the children, if you give them a choice, guess from the cheerful and free Alexei Vasilievich to leave for the boost and demanding Tatyana Viktorovna. Often they only understand adults that from Tatyana Viktorovna they learned to work and learned the story, and Alexei Vasilievich simply stole their time. And now also money.
There are legal complications. The Government of the Russian Federation on August 15, 2013 approved the rules for the provision of paid educational services [1]. Clause 17 indicates the conditions when it is necessary to return money for training. So, you will never understand, remaining in the legal field, who is to blame, why the services were provided "not in full, provided for by educational programs." Maybe the teacher stupidly read the textbook aloud and did not pay attention to the children. Or maybe the student lay on the back desk and defiantly ignored the most interesting lesson in the world. Study is a two -sided process, success depends both on the student and the teacher. By this, it is radically different, say, from the purchase of a car.
However, “the client is always right”, so in the controversial case, the teacher will most likely be guilty. I see one strategy that protects the teachers from accusations: complete standardization of training. Go strictly according to official planning, to give tasks only according to the textbook, test work is on didactic materials. It is desirable to tests, otherwise you can ambiguously evaluate, they will say that he extorted something.
Then the main tool of the teacher becomes a photocopy. (A colleague who worked in a mass American school said that they were teaching something like that. They like to sue in America, and with such a technique they can’t complain - the employee acts according to the instructions.) It is clear that it is inappropriate and even dangerous to write copyright programs here and even dangerous. At the same time, other documents (for example, the draft of the teacher’s standard) require just a creative approach. There is bureaucratic schizophrenia.
Why is it still dangerous to mix “paid educational services in one bottle” with a compulsory program in one bottle?
It is not clear how the atmosphere of cooperation inherent in good schools will withstand commodity-money relations. What happens if in -depth groups will be formed on the basis of the solvency of parents, and not the abilities of schoolchildren? It is subtle matter - here are parental ambitions and moral issues. The child works additionally, and we also take money from him? Do parents come and control the high -quality provision of services? How to expel a student who does not cope with a complex program if you have been paid for him? And if parents have no money capable of mathematics - let it cost the basic mathematics? Or there is money for mathematics, but there is no longer enough for physics with biology - you will have to choose priorities in the middle classes.
“Let them save,” as the ideologists of the “tower” answered such an approximately question. No more intelligible answers were received. Of course, in theory there are civilized mechanisms - funds and trusteeships that will provide places for a capable but poor schoolchildren. But so far for our schools this is a dark forest. I would like the educational authorities to demonstrate and grow successful practices of this kind, and not only drove with an iron hand to happiness.
By the way, since Soviet times, the school has preserved a stupid rhetoric of admiration for the teacher. Unfortunately, it is now actively operated, including officials - instead of increasing salaries and real trust in the teacher. So imagine what will happen if this rhetoric is crossed with the ideology of educational services: in the lesson, the student “humbly kneles” to the teacher, and then next to the circle requires high -quality provision of educational services. The teacher at the Unified State Exam consultation provides services, and then goes to the graduation "give the heart to children." Complete stylistic schiz!
November. We are waiting for exacerbation.