The last refuge of arbitrariness

I'll start with unpopular. I am a consistent supporter of the exam. I know too much about how final and entrance exams were taken in the 1990s and in the early 2000s. And I am well acquainted with the organization of exams by the type of exam in some other countries, for example in Poland.

Yes, the exam is imperfect, there is something to criticize for it, it must be criticized and improved, but in general it is able to give a more or less objective picture of students' knowledge. And he really reduced corruption, and the children began to prepare more seriously for the exam (only few people know how to cook them correctly - but this is another problem), and the mobility of graduates has increased. And an oral exam, of course, is a wonderful form of certification - how communism was a great idea. That's just the implementation of such an idea in practice, alas, is impossible due to the imperfection of human nature. As my colleagues, Polish teachers said with surprise, when I said that we still have discussions about the return of oral exams: “Well, Alexander, how is it possible ... This is too subjective!”

However, everything is possible in our country, and experiments with the return of the oral part of the exam have already begun. However, this is not about that. In the current examination system, a weak link was revealed, where the old, well -familiar and completely unbridled arbitrariness appears in all its glory. This is an appeal consideration.

At first I will only talk about the exam on history and only in Moscow. A few years ago, the situation was different. In 2010, 501 out of 729 was satisfied, in 2012 - 738 out of 1265, that is, about 60%. Experts worked thoughtfully, in case of doubt, they went to meet the graduates. No noticeable conflicts arose. However, a high percentage of satisfied appeals in 2012 was used as an argument for criticizing new models of history tasks, which were then just introduced (in particular, the notorious historical portrait).

“The main reasons for the increase in the percentage of satisfied history appeals in this (2012) are not the poor work of experts, but the factors related to the shortcomings and errors of the developers of Kim USE ,” the polemic was noted. “ The first factor that gave rise to appeals and complicated the work of experts was the introduction of a new task in Kim 2012 - C6 (Historical Portrait).”

Apparently, the conclusions were made the most decisive: if a large number of satisfied appeals allows us to criticize Kima of the exam, then it is necessary to achieve their reduction and then have fun to report on the successes achieved. And since 2013, in general impression, a course was taken to tighten the approach to the appeal. Experts "stand to death" even in cases that many specialists seem obvious. Everything is used - nit -picking to actual inaccuracies, an expanded and very free interpretation of evaluation criteria, even a direct distortion of information and psychological pressure on students.

Here are a few vivid examples of this and last year. Among the areas of activity of Yaroslav the Wise, the girl indicated " Activities aimed at strengthening Orthodoxy (the construction of temples, for example, the cathedrals of St. Sophia in Kiev and Novgorod) ." Note: Temples have nothing to do with Orthodoxy (!). The perplexed question of the unfortunate child was followed by the long reasoning of the expert - that here she, they say, does not go to temples, but prays to the icon of the house, which means that the temples have nothing to do with it.

Another remark in connection with the dynastic marriages of Yaroslav the Wise: the Kyiv princes were non -Russian, so these marriages cannot be considered dynastic. In addition, this is not specific for Yaroslav the Wise: such marriages were before, for example, Svyatoslav’s marriage with a slave (!). It is remarkable that all these arguments were brought by none other than the deputy chairman of the subject commission D. A. Fadeev.

Very often, experts require children some fantastic detail. It’s not enough just to write that under Yaroslav the Wise, the first part of the Code of the Laws of “Russian Pravda” - “Truth Yaroslav” was drawn up, 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 ..."

It was not enough to write that one of the differences between 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 what exactly “letters” and, accordingly, was canceled. Just like in a joke about an examiner requiring all 300 Spartans to name all! And yet, keep in mind that this year Kim exam included 40 questions and tasks, and even knowledgeable children “about everything” simply would not have time to write.

There were a lot of casuistic nit -picking. Cultural policy is, they say, not the direction of activity, but the field of politics. The concept of activity begins to re-binding in a philosophical sense, from the student they demand to indicate its object, subject, method, goal, means, etc., in general, all questions are to one, where you can at least find fault with something, and even some, where, as it seems, there is nothing to complain about, they are not decided in favor of the student. And this despite the fact that official documents indicate that doubts should be interpreted in favor of the students.

Children are forbidden to use textbooks to justify their point of view (when they try to prove that they themselves did not compose everything). Very often, the answer sounded at the appeal that "experts appreciated it like this, but I would appreciate it differently, but still the total amount of points will be the same." The last egregious case is when, at the appeal commission, the boy explained the underestimation of the points by one, and in the conflict commission - completely different. In general, in my opinion, there is wild arbitrariness.

Separately, it is worth mentioning the role of the chairman of the commission - the doct. East. sciences, professor of the Higher School of Economics I.N. Danilevsky, a widely known person. Of course, I can’t judge his scientific views (the opinions of specialists diverge much, but this is understandable). His skill lecturer deserves respect. But behavior during the appeal causes indignation.

How many times the children said that in controversial cases when experts no longer know what to object, the professor is and, crushing their authority, gives the strangest and casuistic arguments. "You have not called the results of the activity (Vladimir Monomakh)." “But we have 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 meant).

Or: “ I have some information according to which this event (battle of 1036) is characterized as only one of the battles with the Pechenegs, albeit won by Yaroslav, in the Tale of Bygone Years. But this cannot be called defeat (as in the response of the student), since they were finally supplanted later by the Polovtsy ”(and meanwhile, in the“ Tales ... ”that the child read, it was said directly:“ And the liver liver ran and did not know where to flee, running away, drowning in a shameful, others in other rings, and they were fading all the rest until now. ").

And the argument that the reform of 1861 was in the interests of the peasants, because “the peasants received freedom”, it turns out, is completely wrong, because freedom was not in the interests of the peasants (as an example, Firs from the “Vishnevoy Garden” and Pushkin Dubrovsky were given).

In my opinion, all this is dishonorable. Why cover such muck with your name? And the fate of children really break ...

According to colleagues, such disgraces are created in other subjects and in other regions. So, at social studies, a girl who proved that her answer almost textually coincides with the answer in the textbook, the expert replied: “ But I would not agree with this textbook and write differently ” (that’s the whole argument).

In Russian, in the essay “Music in the life of people”, the girl wrote: “ Vivaldi’s work“ The Seasons ” ”, she was told: “ And we will now make you a mistake because you wrote simply“ Vivaldi ”, and not“ Vivaldi composer ”. What if it's a poem or a novel? »Arguments that Vivaldi already knows everyone as a composer, and even more so why write about a novel in an essay about music, did not work.

And there are many such examples. Only the literature teachers who have achieved the meeting last year after an excessively strict verification of student work and were able to “reformat” the commission as a result, this year complained little. A good example to follow!

After discussion with colleagues, I transferred some proposals for improving the work of appeal commissions to “in authority” a year ago. One of them was even taken into account (the possibility of tracking by graduates of a technical error in the test part when recognized). But the possibilities for arbitrariness remained the same. Meanwhile, it was proposed:

To divide experts checking the work of graduates and experts of subject commissions - this should not be the same people who actually control their own work. Experts of the subject commission should be known in the professional community as people with a reputation that deserves confidence.
After passing the exam, all used tasks with the correct answers and evaluation criteria should be published immediately. If Fipi opposes this idea, then one should at least oblige graduates and their parents (legal representatives) to the correct answers and criteria for assessing the appeal so that all interested parties can check their answers, compare them with the “official”, determine where and what is the inconsistency.
The full openness of the work of the appeal commission is necessary. Parents, teachers and other representatives of the graduate (by proxy) can take a full part in the meetings. Video recording of the meetings of the commission should be available if necessary. The decisions of the commission are drawn up in a special protocol with their justification.
The commission is obliged to take into account the arguments backed by references to textbooks and textbooks with the head of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

This year I prepared a letter to the Department of Education of Moscow and Rosobrnadzor with a request to organize in the first half of July (before the start of mass holidays) a meeting of all interested parties with the mandatory participation of the chairman of the subject commission on the history of I. N. Danilevsky and its members, officials of the department, teachers and parents and discuss the following issues:

the results of the activity of the subject commission on history in 2015 (analysis of specific situations and statistical information, if it is provided);
ways to improve the work of the subject commission;
The procedure for the formation of the subject commission on history and the role of public organizations (Association of Teachers of History and Social Studies).

It is important to note that the letter was signed by teachers of the history of several leading Moscow schools (No. 1535, the Lyceum "Second School", "Intellectual", No. 1514, etc.). So the problem really exists. But there is no answer yet.

PS Dear Colleagues, received a response from the Moscow Education Department on Appeal in connection with the appeals from P.V. Kuzmin (I. F. Director of the Moscow Dogm Education Center). He proposes to organize a meeting in the format of a round table with the participation of representatives of the Department of Education, Subject Commission and Association of History Teachers. Initially, he proposed the date of July 21 (“By this time we will have some statistical materials for a subject conversation”), but I said that many will be parted on vacation (for example, at that time in Moscow there will be no). They coordinated approximately August 24-25, 2015.