"In a stress state, children may not quite accurately understand experts."

(See Alexander Morozov, “The Last haven of arbitrariness” , Trav-hunger No. 183, July 14, 2015, p. 2, “Education”)

This “Message of the Public” (A. Morozov sent two aspects to the Department of Education almost exactly the same text.

First. Problems with instructive materials (Kim) and the criteria for checking the exam (especially in humanitarian disciplines) exist-who would doubt it! -And it is necessary to understand this, and both of them-to improve as much as possible (to make them absolutely transparent and unequivocal, I believe, it is simply impossible, and therefore I, unlike Mr. Morozov, are a fundamental opponent of the USE in a humanitarian profile: no matter how it is, but it will not be possible to formalize them if you do not reduce the memory of children). However, the question of the quality of the Kims and criteria, as well as the quality of verification of work by experts, A. Morozov reduces to the question of subjective impressions of whether unsatisfied examiners are satisfied with the appeal procedure. This, of course, is an important question, but the problem was, experts managed to explain what the child’s mistake was, dissatisfied with his assessment, and whether the schoolboy could understand this, of course, should occupy the subordinate, albeit an important, place in the problems of organizing and conducting the USE. In the meantime, as last year, it is not discussed how the child wrote the exam and how his work was tested, but that this or that member of the subject commission supposedly said in the transfer of the child or his parent.

Second. Specific facts when the assessment of the child’s work was maliciously underestimated.

Last year, Morozov was already trying to declare an allegedly inadequate assessment of the work of “one girl”. Then, however, the vocabulary of Mr. Morozov was somewhat different: “creatures” and “bitches” (sorry!) Were not the most rigid epithets that he awarded the teachers respected and very attentive to the children who had the misfortune among experts. The process of appeal was indulged in from the words of the "injured" girl (as in the current letter - from the words of the pope, the "professional historian"). At the same time, the facts and formulations unceremoniously distorted and distorted. After reading this post, one teacher called me - a very professional and fundamental person - who asked what the outrages were being created in the subject commission I headed. I then asked: why did Morozov refer to the story of the girl (who could not understand or not understand the experts-in the end, the girl was in a stress state and, moreover, had to somehow justify herself in the eyes of her parents and in her own eyes), and will not hang out of unjustly evaluated work? And why did not the girl apply for a conflict commission that would put me and experts of “pests” in place? Then this teacher and his friend himself checked the work of the girl. Their assessments came together one to one with the assessment of the subject commission. After that, Morozov began to write that the guilt of the experts was not that they underestimated the assessment, but that they incorrectly explained her mistakes to the girl (again relying on her own words).

This year, a new tactic was chosen: to come from “fundamental” positions (although the essence of the claims is the same: an underestimated assessment of the specific work of the “girl Tanya”). At the same time, the logic every now and then summarizes the “fighter for justice”: in his own words, a large number of satisfied appeals in past years (and he evaluates as an extremely positive phenomenon) was due to the fact that Kima and criteria were poorly drawn up (he should evaluate the like as a supporter of the exam negatively); In the same year, according to his own words (and here I completely agree with him), both are spelled out much better (I consider this as a clear achievement), which led (perhaps, although there is no official statistics yet - this is, as he writes, “according to the sensation”) to reduce the satisfied appeals (which seems to be A. Morozov, as they are now guided by much more clear formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formal formals According to my data, the percentage of satisfied appeals has not changed for several years). But as it seemed to me, this was the main task of the exam: put all the children in equal conditions. Morozov, apparently, does not agree with this.

The Department of Education allegedly demanded that experts not satisfy the appeal (that is, wanted to imagine the results of his own activities as worse?) And almost additionally paid experts unsatisfied appeals. There are no reproaches in the article, but in its blogs and posts of frosts it is not shy.

By the way, the Moscow Department has not yet received the Department of Education - except for the letter of Morozov and “Signatures” - not a single complaint of children and their parents about conducting an exam and appeal of the exam on history. Only five people came to the conflict commission (out of almost 9,000 works that were written this year), one claim was satisfied (one point was added to the boy). The number of third inspections (when the estimates of the first two experts dispersed) amounted to about 22%.

Like last year, specific “inaccuracies” (i.e., errors in dates, formulations, etc.), to which experts “find fault” (according to existing criteria, in the presence of actual errors, are set by 0 points) are presented in a distorted form.

To begin with, the tasks that caused the greatest number of contradictions are related to historical portraits: the child had to name the dates of the life (activity) of the historical person chosen, name two directions of his activity, give them a general characteristic (reinforcing it with no less than two specific facts) and indicate the results of activity in each of the directions. A simple list of facts was not counted 1 .

I will dwell on specific "examples" given in the article:

• I don’t know how to you, but it seems to me that the mention of the construction of two churches in Kyiv and in Novgorod (as well as delivering a metropolitan without agreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople) is hardly considered the facts that reinforce the thesis that Yaroslav was engaged in the strengthening of Orthodoxy (by the way, without a characteristic of this direction).
• And dynastic marriages can hardly be called the “direction of activity”; In addition, it was the usual practice of all the rulers of that time.
• Another entry: “ Very often, experts require children of some fantastic detail. It’s not enough just to write that under Yaroslav the Wise, the first part of the Code of Laws “Russian Pravda” - “Pravda Yaroslav” was compiled, it was necessary to list its main provisions. On the reasonable question of the graduate: “What, all?” - The foggy answer followed: “Well, at least half ...” . ”

That is, as a direction of activity, the child called a specific fact: the creation of Yaroslav "Russian Truth". He was given an explanation that this is a specific fact associated with a certain, not named and not characterized by a schoolboy, direction. To understand what kind of direction this is, you need to know at least some norms (say, restriction of blood feud) recorded in Pravda.

• The same applies to the characteristics of Vladimir Monomakh’s activity: “ How many times the children said that in controversial cases when experts no longer know what to object, the professor is and, pressing their authority, gives the strangest and casuistic arguments. “You have not called the results of activity (Vladimir Monomakh).” - “But we have called the“ Charter of Vladimir Monomakh ”, this is the result of meaningful activity, a purposefully created document, a legislative monument.” “This cannot be a result. After all, what a wonderful constitution did we have - and the result?!” (It’s scary to think what constitution was in mind) . ”
  I do not argue, the creation of a legislative act is the result of meaningful activity. But this is not the direction of activity (which the child did not name and did not describe), but a specific fact associated with him. This is not the result of activity in this direction, but, let’s say, a tool with which Vladimir Monomakh tried to achieve some goal (reducing social tension in Kyiv in 1113).

• “ Or: “ I have some information, according to which in the “Tale of Bygone Years” this event (battle of 1036) is characterized as only one of the battles with the Pechenegs, even if won by Yaroslav. But this cannot be called a defeat (as in the student’s response), since they were finally supplanted later by the Polovtsy ”(and meanwhile, in the“ Tales ... ”, which the child read, said straight “ And the liver liver ran and did not know where to run, some, running away, drowned into a shameful, others in other rivers, and so died, and their rest runs somewhere to this day” ). ” This is written from the words of the child, but he was written in a response differently: "In 1036, Yaroslav finally defeated the Pechenegov." Obviously, A. Morozov read the Tale of Bygone Years, but he would not have prevented him from knowing that the victory of Yaroslav for only several years secured the southern borders of Kyiv, and then the Pechenegs continued raids in alliance with other nomads.

A number of “inaccuracies” to which experts “found fault” are direct mistakes of graduates:

• “ It was not enough to write that one of the differences in Paul I policy in comparison with the policies of Catherine II was the cut of the privileges of the nobility, which was expressed, in particular, in the abolition of a“ complained letter ”, it was necessary to list that it was the“ letter ”and, accordingly, was canceled. Just like in a joke about an examiner requiring all 300 Spartans to name all! "
  However, Paul I did not cancel the “complained letter” as such, but only some of its provisions (provincial noble meetings, personal appeals of the nobles to the emperor, a ban on the bodily punishments of the nobles). They should have called them a child.

• As for the assertion that “that the reform of 1861 was [carried out. -so in the original answer ] in the interests of the peasants ”, then, firstly, A. Morozov refers to an appeal of two years ago, and secondly, the peasants (a significant part of which remained as a result of almost without means of existence), apparently, they did not understand how the contemporaries and the researchers who characterized this reform (clearly not in relation to the landowners) did not understand this reform) About her half -heartedness, inferiority and injustice, and that it is the unresolved of the “peasant question” that will lead to revolutions.

Finally, often neither children nor “professional historians” who accompanied them, they did not understand that the answer was simply inadequate (there was no question about “nit -picking” in this article, but Morozov is widely discussed in his posts on the Internet). So, for example, he “drives” by attempts to explain to a “professional historian” (from the words of the “historian” himself) that the answer to the question: “ What socio-political problems were raised by fifth artists? "Cannot be formulated as follows:" Social problems " - since this is a tautology. This moment, mentioned on the page of A. Morozov on Facebook, was excluded from the text of the article, apparently due to the fact that the readers managed to explain to the author, what is the fundamental difference between social and estate contradictions, which he, apparently, did not understand, as his informant did not understand, a “professional historian”.

In general, it is interesting to monitor how the individual provisions and assessments of Morozov are changing, depending on who for whom and what he writes and what his readers explain to him. But this is another topic.

By the way, Morozov was offered to meet with the organizers of the exam and members of the subject commission, but he wrote that there is no time for this now. Therefore, the meeting was postponed to the end of August. Before her, I believe, there is no sense in the public discussion of this article.

Igor Danilevsky,
doct. East. sciences, head. Department of History of Ideas and Methodology of Historical Science of the Faculty of History of the Higher School of Economics

1 detailed list of requirements for answers and the conditions for setting assessments are described in sufficient detail in the manual of I. A. Artasov, which is posted in the public domain on the Internet.