School during quarantine: let them decide for yourself

At the seventh week of self -isolation, various interesting thoughts begin to come to the head. I, apparently, is not the only one. In any case, thoughts, one another more interesting, constantly come into the heads of the leaders of various educational structures of the federal level. Or not educational, but in any way to this area related. Some of them are tactical, for example, the problem of the OGE and the USE of the current 2020. One way or another, they will be embodied in life in the next three to four months and, hopefully, not in the most stupid way.

Other, already voiced, thought-proposals by the nature of strategic. There are many of them too. Let's say, the president’s highly original idea of ​​the urgent need for serious reforms in the educational field is highly expressed. Interestingly, among teachers fused by permanent reforming the school over the past twenty years, this did not cause a special reaction. Apparently, they are accustomed to how microbes are used to antibiotics and cockroaches to a long -known poison. But one of the ideas of recent times has real chances of realization, and I would like to talk about it in more detail.

We are talking about the intention of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation in the new academic year to eliminate the system of subject rooms in schools and return to "classrooms". Readers of the 65+ special age group specially protected by now, probably remember how it was in their distant childhood. Children spend all day in their “” class, and teachers come to them in accordance with the schedule. According to the authors of the idea, this will reduce the contacts between children. Thus, their safety will increase in terms of the possibility of infection with coronavirus.

Preparing to discuss this plot on the OTR, I was not too lazy, as far as possible in the conditions of self -isolation, to ask my colleagues. Discussions did not work out. The colleagues were surprisingly unanimous in the rejection of these ministerial recommendations, diverging only in the arguments. The answers were ranging from the laconic “complete nonsense” to a detailed analysis of the causes of technical unreality and predicted consequences of this solution for both children and teachers.

The prospect of the lack of in the stay of children in the same room throughout the school day is unambiguously assessed as unacceptable, primarily from the point of view of psychological. Some experience of this kind already is already available. So, on the eve of the closing of schools in March, we already worked in this mode for two weeks.

And before, if in any class a child who was sick with measles or chickenpox was declared in any class, the class was scored. Depending on the duration of the incubation period of the disease, classmates of the sick were isolated from other children in one room, and teachers came to them according to the schedule. True, these children still went to the dining room, and they were also released for changes, and to the toilet, but, if possible, separately from others. And the teachers, having worked in a quarantine class, went to other children. So the isolation turned out to be very conditional, because the change for one class, while the rest of the lessons are underway, inevitably turns these lessons into a booth, at least within the floor.

Ministerial recommendations suggest the establishment of a sliding schedule of changes so that children from different classes rest at different times. Thus, the aforementioned booth is stretched for the whole day, since the classes at the school are about thirty to second, and only six changes.

It is unlikely that the sliding schedule of the beginning of the academic day proposed in the same recommendations will solve this problem. Rather, on the contrary, it will exacerbate, since the same will add the same thing to the hustle and confusion, which will cause a sliding schedule of change, but due to a multi -time arrival in school.

Let us leave, perhaps, behind the brackets, the state of the class, in which it is unrelated, day after day, children are in the age range of 11-16 years. Any adult who has their own children of this age will easily imagine this state. But there may be more than one or two of them, as in most families, but, according to the current classes of class, twenty-five to thirty people ...

Now let's see how it will look from the point of view of the teacher. In the comments I received, the term "educational environment" was repeatedly sounded. A good term, which means the overall atmosphere that the teacher creates in his subject class. The educational environment is a synthetic concept, including many interconnected elements. This is the constant design of the office, and its equipment, and many small details that distinguish a specific office from others. And of course, the main element is a teacher. Not a teacher at all, but a specific specialist who is constantly working in this office.

The educational environment is dynamic; It changes more or less noticeably depending on the features of its perception by children of a particular class studied by the topic and, importantly, the ability and desire of the teacher to change it. For a qualified teacher, the creation and constant correction of the educational environment in the office is an obligatory part of the work, both technical and creative. It is very interesting to create and change the educational environment. And of course, every standing teacher is unique, how unique a highly qualified specialist himself is unique.

And now imagine how this most highly qualified specialist runs from class to class, dragging the arm of cards, a globe, a laptop, a working diary and a pack or two children's notebooks. In the corridor or on the stairs, he, of course, drops a couple of times to the delight of children. Finally, this highly qualified historian (geographer, biologist, etc.) gets to the desired cabinet (Russian language and literature, chemistry, etc.), where a gallop is accepted to create the educational environment necessary for working in it. It was with a gallop, since the change has gone to move from the office to the office. You can colorize this picture a little more: to hang and cling to what the teacher dragged, very likely, there will be nowhere to go. For example, there are no magnetics in this office - I dragged the previous colleague, or even the children joked, hidden. However, an experienced teacher, of course, before the first lesson will fill up pockets with magnetics, markers for the board, and also grab a couple of sponges to erase the written. A couple because he will probably forget some one somewhere ...

In most Moscow schools, it has been an indispensable element of the equipment of the training rooms for several years for not the first year. In theory, she can, at first glance, solve at least part of these problems. Well, at least the teacher does not need to drag markers and lips, and the plane cards also poked in the panel with a stylus or just a finger and received a picture. However, in practice, everything is not so simple. This panel, in essence, is a redistent tablet, is configured by each teacher for its needs, and this setting takes time. Changing three or four cabinets for a working day, the teacher, respectively, three or four times will reconfigure these panels, which will take a lot of time. Moreover, time from the lesson, since at a break (10 minutes) the teacher is busy with the movement from the office 23 (2nd floor) to the office 51 (5th floor). And without that, not very reliable, Mesh, most likely, simply can not stand such an appeal. And since it is all the time when installing the panel other equipment in the office is dismantled, the teacher runs the risk of being left without Mash, and without the opportunity to use at least classic manuals.

The big question is also how long the teacher himself will withstand this mode of operation. Years (to her) after one - fifty in fifty, and the excellent health of the teacher, alas, is not mostly different ... Yes, I almost forgot the mandatory "cherry on the cake". A couple of years ago, teachers were stopped paying for the head of the offices. That is, the teacher can, of course, engage in the equipment of the office, in which it more or less constantly works, creating its educational environment there. But he will do this at the expense of personal time and, to a large extent, personal money. The concept of "my office" legally and financially, thus, has already ceased to exist ...

By the way, about money, where without them. The so -called "new remuneration system" - NSOT, has long ceased to be new. Its essence is in the wage of the teacher on the basis of the calculated unit, which is called the clumsy term “student-hour”. In other words, for the lesson, the teacher will receive more or less depending on how many children were present on it.

In the package of recommendations for the elimination of the cabinet system, it is also proposed to disrupt classes. Let me remind you that today their minimum occupancy is 25 people, and the maximum is limited only by the cubature of the room. We divide these 25-30 people into two classes. For a lesson in each of them, the teacher will receive exactly half as much as for a full -class lesson. The exception is only foreign languages ​​and computer science, where work is already going on in small groups.

How many lessons can a teacher spend in a day? Six, maximum eight. It is easy to calculate how the disaggregation of the classes will affect its salary, provided that the NSOT is preserved, and nothing definitely can be heard about the abolition of this system. So, good wishes that it would be nice to develop and introduce the industry tariff system for the teacher's wages. The system, which, by the way, was not so long ago, existed and worked at the very least.

Among other things, and teachers will need about twice as much as there is now. And here, as has already been finally recognized, the personnel deficit in schools is very, very significant. More than convincing research on this score was carried out by quite authoritative organizations - the RANEPA and HSE. There are not enough teachers already , and there is not enough. Where will the additional frames come from? Young people, contrary to the assuations of the ministerial chiefs, are not lined up in line for teaching posts. And the teachers of the older generation, who in the current school are at least a third of the personnel, in half, in the manner of amoeba, will not be able to burst. As well as double your load, already often one and a half-two-two.

So what happens in the end? It turns out that, apparently, those who spoke out about the abolition of the subject-captain system are right as briefly, namely: “complete nonsense”. This will not solve the task of improving the safety of children. Not only will not solve, but also gives rise to a huge number of additional problems for both children and teachers, as well as the school administration.

And the way out, I believe, is that the solution to the problem is entrusted to schools themselves. The director and teachers know better what exactly in the conditions of their particular school can and should be undertaken in order to reduce the risk of infection. Moreover, in the event of an outbreak of infection, it is they who will still be guilty. And this, unfortunately, does not depend on whether the school has strictly executed ministerial recommendations or took some measures at its own discretion.

Leonid Perlov,
Geography teacher of the Lyceum "Second School" (Moscow)