Translated material
The main problem of the exam is a shortage of trust
The TRV unfolding at the site ( see the articles of Alexander Morozov and Igor Danilevsky ) and on social networks the discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the exam in the history of me, frankly, is very happy. First of all, the very fact of public discussion of the topic with the participation of official persons is pleased with the level of the chairman of the subject commission.
The emergence of a “collective letter” was also incredibly pleased. In our current society, when communication goes either down (order) or up (request), any form of horizontal communication (and the collection of signatures under critical writing just suggests such communication) is a positive and encouraging one.
I will not go into the intricacies of the dispute. I think they are not very interesting to non -professional, and professionals on these issues are naturally different opinions. It is noteworthy that the argumentation of the parties and proposals is distinctly vary.
What do the authors of the collective letter offer?
To organize 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 activities of the subject commission on the history of 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).
With the first proposal - about the meeting at the site of the Moscow Department - opponents (on behalf of which I.N. Danilevsky spoke ), they agree - though, before the vacations, as the authors of the letter proposed, did not have time, but we hope that the meeting would still take place.
But all other suggestions remained unanswered. Moreover, in fact, the entire extensive answer of I.N. Danilevsky came to a detailed explanation why, for all these cases, the examiners are right. Of course, the respected chairman of the commission does not believe that there can be no mistakes. But, in his opinion, their number does not require any significant changes in the procedure.
In my opinion, one cannot agree with this. Figuratively speaking, it looks like an attempt to impose a discussion about the color of the curtains in the house, which is the way at any moment threatens to wash off into the abyss.
It is obvious that the fate of the USE depends not so much on the professionalism of the developers of measuring materials or members of subject commissions (although it depends, of course), how much on the opinion about this institution in society and is already transmitted from there into the sphere of political decisions.
Recently, you can often hear that “both children and teachers are accustomed to the exam”, and therefore you can not worry about the fate of the exam. It, of course, is like this: a person forced to exist in one (and in his own logical) system for several years, gradually gets used to it. History shows: people are able to get used to inhuman conditions. And what about that?
With society as a whole, however, everything is an order of magnitude more complicated. According to the All-Russian survey of the Levada Center, which was held at the end of May 2015, 48% of respondents believe that the USE assesses the knowledge of school graduates worse compared to the usual exam. Only 10% of respondents consider it more objective. But the most unpleasant thing is that over the past year the number of those who consider the USE more objective has decreased almost doubled (in May 2014, 19% of respondents thought so) [1] .
An unpleasant discovery for those who judge the situation around the exam only by press conferences of the head of Rosobrnadzor. It is obvious that a sharp deterioration in public opinion about the exam is associated not only with the real facts of abuse or incompetence, but also, above all with the general restoration/ revenge situation in the country. It seems to the layman that if we return the “best Soviet education in the world” with all its attributes, then everything else will return - the power of the state, stability, confidence in the future, etc.
These illusions would be ridiculous if there were no real chances that sooner or later (and, judging by the state of the economy, rather early), power for the sake of public opinion would not begin to make “sacred sacrifices”. The USE among such likely victims is one of the first.
In such conditions, the organizers of the USE should not have browned from the claims of the public (including professional), and day and night tired of forgeing the army of supporters. Unless, of course, not to take a seriously playful version (based, though in a real quote) that members of the subject commission on history led by the chairman are so against the exam as a form of testing knowledge that they are trying to discredit it in the eyes of society in all possible ways.
The exam, like all the exams that exist in society, not so much about whether Yaroslav finally won in 1036 of the Pechenegov or only patted pretty, but about justice. If the society is not sure in fairness, the exam is not a tenant.
On this side, there is a reason for working on errors and search for ways to improve, it seems.
1. Claims to the "prohibitive attitude" of experts? We must understand. If we see (as we wrote in the comments) that at the exam, the student, correctly answering the question of the events of the Patriotic War of 1812, in one case writes the Great Patriotic War, and for this a score is reduced, it is obvious that such descriptions should be interpreted in favor of the student. And such instructions should be given.
2. Openness should be an order of magnitude higher. The proposals are expressed to introduce the Institute of Public Observers. Why not, if this increases the confidence of the company in the exam?
Maybe you need someone like an Ombudsman to protect the rights of examiners, its role can play a representative of the local association of teachers of history and social studies. Let's try, and while the Association of Teachers of the History of the Moscow Region at the height of the examination campaign is occupied by the organization of a round table dedicated to the "millennium of the murder of the first Russian saints." The murdered saints, of course, is sorry, but the living children are no less.
With a video recording of the meeting of the commission (which is as if being conducted), its problems. As teachers who tried to claim it write, this is almost impossible (information on last year). If so, let's figure it out where the plug is. Maybe conduct an online broadcast? You can’t collect all those interested in the audience, but if there is nothing to hide, then technical means allow you to ensure publicity.
Allow children and their parents to record themselves? Also acceptable. Allocate access to outsiders by simple power of attorney. Allow the use of dressed textbooks and official documents (such as the same X) as arguments. The protocol must contain a clear justification and be issued to the graduate. All these suggestions are from comments in the discussion on the network. What is the problem to transfer it to the negotiation site? No problem.
3. It is necessary to use the Association of Teachers of History and Social Studies in the examination of Kim and proceedings in conflict situations. This is perhaps a key point. Not only because the quality of examination materials and procedures depends on the latitude and intensity of discussion in the most direct way. The most effective guarantee that the expert will work efficiently is responsibility not only to the authorities, but - first of all - to the professional community. However, for this, the community should not only exist in the form of formal institutions, but also work.
In December 2012, I happened to become a member of the second All -Russian Congress of Teachers of History and Social Studies. Several hundred participants gathered in the premises of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, hot and substantial debates were conducted. One of the sections was devoted to the topic "Assessment of the quality of school historical education and its improvement." Among the issues considered are possible mechanisms for the participation of the Association in the development and examination of Kim. There was a polemic, there were interesting offers in the resolution.
There was only a resolution. At least, neither then, nor even now, after 2.5 years, I was not able to find the text of the resolution on the association website to understand what proposals were taken into account and which are not.
The Association, I think, could participate not only in the representative office of students (through the Ombudsman, as indicated above), but also in the formation of the composition of subject commissions (with the opportunity to securely doubtfully doubt their professionalism or impartiality of experts).
There is also an important problem: low wages of experts, and in a number of regions, for example, in St. Petersburg, in violation of the law, the work of experts is not paid at all, and the proposed bursts are not adequate compensation for the absolute majority.
If teachers and students know that they have the opportunity to turn to an authoritative and independent referee, then the situation described below may change.
I.N. Danilevsky writes: “ By the way , the Department of Education is still , I did not receive Moscow - except for the letter of Morozov and the “signator” - not a single complaint of children and their parents about conducting the exam and appeals of the exam on history . Only five people came to the conflict commission ( out of almost 9,000 works that were written this year ) ... ” However , this argument, designed to substantiate the good work of the commissions, if it compares it with the above data of the Levada Center, turns into its opposite. They do not complain not because everything suits, but because they do not believe, they are afraid of problems.
What is the alternative proposed by the signatures of the ways of reforming the exam in order to increase trust in it? Except for the option of refusing any changes, which is equivalent to the verdict, then only one is the ultimate formalization of exam tasks. It is said to bring two significant facts in each area of activity - find. If there are no two in the school curriculum, then these are yours, a student (and a teacher), problems. But this path naturally leads to a single (and only) textbook in which the only right point of view on all the controversial moments of Russian history will be set out. In the rejection of which it seems that both sides of the unfolding discussion are united.
Meanwhile, according to the same survey of the Levada Center, they are positively related to the idea of creating a single school textbook on history 79%. These indicators became record over the past two years: in May 2013, the release of a single history textbook supported 71% of citizens.
It seems that society has made its choice, dear colleagues. Will we continue to argue about the coloring of the curtains?