Translated material
Children's detachment of the besieged fortress
The new concept of patriotic education uses the educational ideology of the time of the Chancellor Bismarck
Subjected by the Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev on New Year's days, the state concept of patriotic education for 2016–2020 caused a variety of assessments and living disputes . This document, designed in the harsh traditionalist and preserving vocabulary, follows the practice of the government work of past years, which comes to the stationery term "Gospatriot Program" . Education can go through Soviet rails. But it may not go.
The certificate of the government’s decree says: "The concept is aimed at creating conditions for increasing the level of consolidation of the company in solving the problems of sustainable development of Russia and ensuring national security." Particular attention is paid to the significance of the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War and an increase in the interest of Russian citizens in military history. Patriotic education, the document says, must be carried out, taking into account "modern social realities, adequate geopolitical situation in the world." The concept of education of patriotism is focused on all social strata and age groups of Russian citizens, but it gives priority to children and youth.
The prospects of the patriotic education of new generations of Russians in an interview with Radio Liberty are evaluated by the supervisor of the Institute of Educational Policy Policy "Eureka" Alexander Adamsky:
This is such a trap: let's discuss the content of the document, but by default we understand that the probability of its execution is striving for zero
- In principle, any state needs guidelines for actions in the field of education. Since the laws of the Russian Federation are education and education, some strategic guidelines in this area, in the field of education, should also be. The question is how to determine them? The devil, as you know, lies in details. In the very presence of such guidelines, I do not see anything unusual. It has always been since Sparta, and, I think, it will always be.
- Then I will formulate the question like this: do you agree with the landmarks that the Russian government put before its country?
-Firstly, the question is how much this is a binding story to fulfill. The second question is how much it is at all. The Russian government has recently been carried away by the creation of optional documents in the field of education . On the one hand, the government does not follow the path of dictatorship, on the other hand - its instructions are similar to good wishes that are not expected to execute. The strategy in the field of education has been adopted relatively recently, quite liberal. Now the concept of teaching patriotism has appeared. This is such a trap: let's discuss the content of the document, but by default we understand that the probability of its execution strives for zero.
- That's right - to zero?
I can agree, but I can disagree with the statements expressed in the concept of patriotism, but they are definitely not from the 21st century
- Yes, in fact - yes. Honestly, I do not really understand what this format, which is visited by the Prime Minister. The concept is a description of theoretical approaches: there is a hypothesis, it is put into the foundation of some reasoning, a design is built on the basis of this hypothesis, then a theoretical model arises, which connects different objects. The theoretical model - before it is implemented in practice, should be adopted by the scientific community. Tell me, how can the hypothesis be made by an administrative decision?! Because we will administerly establish the theoretical concept, its chances of implementation are not increasing.
In educational policy, two areas are obviously counteracting - archaic, protective and more pragmatic, more modern. This is evident by regulatory acts. There was a education strategy - it is quite “environmentally friendly”, it does not have radical statements and calls, it is quite modern. In parallel with this, the concept of education arises, which we are discussing. It is more radical-protective, more archaic. I can agree, but I may not agree with the statements expressed in it, but they are definitely not from the 21st century.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in high school in newfound Crimea. 2014
This confrontation itself, in my opinion, is a positive sign - it involves a discussion about development paths. There is a protective wing - unified textbooks, ideas about the concepts of education that we are now discussing, the glorification of the Soviet school and the desire to return to it, the authoritarian format of education and education. And there is such a pragmatic line: education should be modern, there should be a field of choice, the idea that individualization of education is a good thing, that network education is a positive phenomenon.
In general, it is surprising that Prime Minister Medvedev signed this document
The “patriotic” concept is a swing of the archaic-freezing wing, for which, it seems to me, the main thing is not educational goals, but the desire to put forward a certain educational design that could be used for purposes, for example, a political struggle. After all, the concept does not imply the allocation of financial resources, it is just a set of views. The government is now obliged to adopt a program that contains justifications for the allocation of resources and the system for evaluating the expenditure of these resources. Whether the program will follow is still unknown. But if it follows, then it should take into account not only the protective concept, but also the same liberal education strategy.
Vladimir Putin plays at the Sochi Educational Center for Gifted Children "Sirius". September 1, 2015
What will this program be? Will it be at all, what will it cost the budget - this is a question? The financial situation in the country is difficult. Huge social expenses have been declared, for example, withstanding the wages of education workers, teachers at the level of secondary in the region, although the regions lack money and the salary is already declining. The construction of new schools has been announced, at least 50 billion rubles should be allocated for this. The presidential decree on the elimination of queues to kindergartens has not been executed. But building new schools and kindergartens is not only construction costs, but also additional costs for salaries and maintenance. If the state’s efforts to ensure its intentions in the field of education will be transferred to the program, then funds should also be allocated for this - which, as we see, is not enough.
To the school to form an obedience to the state, to encourage the lack of any reflection and dissent so that future soldiers fought well for Faterland
Since, apparently, funding is not assumed under the concept, the examination of its effectiveness was not carried out. In general, it is surprising that Prime Minister Medvedev signed this document. I remember how, as a deputy prime minister, he actively supported the national priority project of education. It was a powerful modernization project, and it was only 10 years ago: the allocation of funds, and monitoring the implementation, and different directions of development, and the support of innovative movements, projects, advanced schools, and a lot of money was spent. And the fact that now Prime Minister Medvedev has signed such a protective document is amazing. I think that this is precisely due to the fact that the implementation of the concept is not supposed.
- Do you think that a set of views set forth in the concept sends a Russian school to the Soviet past?
- The address is that address - exactly there. But, in fact, this is not referred to a Soviet school. This is a reference to German school practice of the mid -19th century. There is a famous phrase of one German professor of geography, which is mistakenly attributed to Otto von Bismarck: " The Prussian-Austrian war was won by the Prussian teacher." The temporary context in which this phrase was uttered is symptomatic: it denoted the turn of the German school in the state-patriotic direction. There is a wonderful work of Nadezhda Krupskaya in 1916 , in which Lenin’s wife analyzes in detail the turn of the German school in a national, state-patriotic direction. The school was prescribed to form obedience to the state, to encourage the absence of any reflection and dissent so that future soldiers fought well for Faterland. This methodology is sometimes set as an example to other education systems, but at the same time they forget one simple thing: what has Germany lost thanks to this education? When psychologists, after the Second World War, said that the German nation lost his conscience, they meant, in particular, and this: here is the result of such a patriotic education.
The teacher ceased to be the only source of knowledge, and exemplary behavior, and everything in the world
The new Russian concept offers a return to the good old German education system, from which, in fact, the heoping of the Soviet school was lifted. Uniform, semi -Army, ideologically pumped up, with the formation of a person according to a sample given by the state. Such a model has lost all efficiency, and not only because it is ideologically incorrect words - it is simply methodologically ineffective. What was good at the end of the XIX, even in the middle of the twentieth century, now does not work. For several reasons. Firstly, the teacher ceased to be the only source of knowledge, and exemplary behavior, and everything in the world. This is not good and not bad - this is a fact, it happened. Secondly, the world has become more open, different ideas are competing in it, accessible to any inquisitive child besides the school, in addition to the teacher. Thirdly, any patriotic ideas must be reinforced with something-the way of life, achievements-and these evidence must be presented to the child. If this is not presented to the child, then empty phrases avert him and set against it. If the case is started in order to saturate the vocabulary of chatter, then this process will make the opposite effect on the child: instead of forming in the “right spirit”, the child will protest.
- This is what it turns out: some officials whose names are unknown to us make up a document whose essence you now have so brightly described. The prime minister, whose name, on the contrary, is well known to us and who, 10 years ago, promoted modernization ideas in domestic education, signs this document-how you suspect, secretly hoping that the concept will still not be fulfilled. I make the conclusion this: Russia is an incompetent, ineffective state, since such documents are born at such a high level.
These theses are not designed to influence children, but to influence adults
-You can formulate this thesis differently. These are not negligent, but, on the contrary, highly professional officials who simply solve other problems, composed a concept. Their professionalism is not to change education and make it modern - and therefore the country's economy, social processes in it to make it more modern. People who promote the archaic model of education, implement their administrative, bureaucratic, bureaucratic professionalism not in educational policy, but in political technologies, they are political technological professionals. And in this sense, this concept is good professional work, we can say, in quotation marks “good”. The thing is: so many in the country, including teachers, support the idea of introducing a single history textbook. Many, including teachers, support archaic military-patriotic education. The teacher's composition is as heterogeneous as society. And the parents who graduated from the Soviet school, for whom the trees were large then, and therefore life was beautiful, this conservative song is very supported.
Reception of new members in a pioneer organization. Stavropol Territory, November 2015
Education in modern socio-political discourse in Russia is a very deep periphery
These theses are not designed to influence children, but to influence adults. In order to prepare the 2016 election campaign, for example: to run this archaic discourse, to substantiate the thesis that we live in a besieged fortress, and in the besieged fortress, raising children should be just this, and not some other. It is from the point of view of educational policy that the concept is not working, ineffective. And for politics - very effective, this is not the first such document. And this is not a matter of internal discussion of educational policy professionals, but an attempt to use education for political technologies. A rather dangerous venture, I must say.
- The key point here, obviously, is the struggle of protective and "modern" trends in education and in general in the development of the country. Do you have some kind of feeling-which of these trends now has more reason to win?
There are countries in which the stagnation of the economy blocks the development of education, like a cork in the bathroom - this is our case
- This situation is unpredictable and does not depend on preferences in the field of education. Based on corporate logic, of course, I would like the formation to be a key direction in the development of the country. But this is not so. Education in modern socio-political discourse in Russia is a very deep periphery, it is not interesting either the highest political leadership of the country, or the elite. Unfortunately, the structure of the labor market in Russia is such that a high qualification of education is not required. In different countries, there were cases when education pulled the economy. There was another situation when the developed labor market demanded a large human capital. And now in Russia the underdevelopment of the labor market inhibits the intention to be educated, because there is no adequate point of application of good quality education. In order for this structure of the economy, the structure of the labor market is preserved, archaic formation is much more suitable. Here the question is not in public preferences, but in objective economic trends, in how the economy will develop, how it will be diversified. There are countries in which the stagnation of the economy blocks the development of education as a cork in the bathroom - this is our case. The professional education market is already global, it has ceased to be national. From this it follows that the point of application of a good education for a Russian smart person can be in any country in the world, not necessarily in his homeland.
- It turns out that Russia needs soldiers and ordinary workers, and no one else?
- Well, I'm still not sure of that. In Russia, there is no hard yet - I want to highlight this word! - Unidirectional educational policy. And this is a positive story. Now we are monitoring the clash of concepts, and how it will end, I can’t personally predict, ”said Alexander Adamsky , the supervisor of the Institute for Educational Polosice of Education, the scientific director of the Institute for Educational Polosice of Educational Policy, said in an interview with Radio Radio.