30 years of reformation

In the Russian language, the words “reform” and “education” have been used for the past two decades exclusively in conjunction. Moreover, one without the other is almost impossible to imagine. As a rule, the phrase “reform of the educational system” is supplemented by the scientific term “experiment”. Since 1999, our permanent reform, sequentially or in parallel, was aimed at:

• the transition to the universal 12-year secondary education;
• preservation of eleven years (which was actually a ten -year -old, since from the third grade children moved directly to the fifth);
• the humanitarianization of education with the simultaneous strengthening of the block of mathematics and physics, as well as the inclusion of the “Fundamentals of Life Safety” of the powerful unit of initial military training;
• restoration of fourth grades, return to a full -fledged eleven -year -old;
• profileization of the senior level of high school with the number of profiles from five to thirteen;
• the introduction of a single state exam before the completion of the development of the methodology for its conduct, and everywhere and for everyone;
• the announcement of the experiment on the introduction of the Unified State Examination is successful before its end, and without analysis and publication of results;
• a revision of the further fate of the exam and its declaration voluntary;
• approval of voluntary exam as the only possible form of school certification, as well as entrance exams for entering the institute, with the corresponding indication of this in the new law on education;
• the allocation of the list of "special" universities for which the exam is not mandatory;
• the livestock attracting of all tenth graders to five -day military training on the basis of military units at the expense of the education budget;
• The spiritual education of children through the widespread introduction in schools of the course of the foundations of Orthodox culture and others, equally confessed;
• reducing schools, institutions of additional education and kindergartens to the educational complexes of many thousands;
• the introduction of the terms “regim”, “contingent” and “supervision” in the education system, previously used mainly in the institutions of the Federal Penitentiary Service;
• the transition from the essentially oriented principle in learning to competent oriented, with the widespread mixing of the concepts of “competence” and “competence”;
• the adoption of a new law on education, which defined the status of the educational sphere as part of the service sector and, accordingly, the teacher - as an employee of the service sector; In the same law - the liquidation of the concept of school and its replacement with an educational institution ...

From the same series - the innovation to reform the financing system of budgetary, including educational, institutions. NSOT-a new remuneration system-enriched our dictionary with a remarkable calculated unit "Student-hour", as well as a three-story formula for its calculation. At the same time, a significant part of the teacher’s salary turned into a certain “stimulating”, and its size began to be determined by the opinion of the director and depends mainly on his relationship with a specific teacher.

The list could be continued. But, frankly, I don't want to. For some reason, every time it comes to one or another face of reform, an immortal phrase of the classic arises in the memory: “We still do not know how yet.” What exactly do not know how? For example, I am a teacher with considerable experience and decent education, I do not know how to realize ideas, the meaning of which, it seems, is not always clear to their creators.

However, this is all trivial, and once again scolding the Ministry of Education is boring and unproductive. Moreover, for the period under consideration, it has turned into the Ministry of Education and Science and, recently, again into the Ministry of Education. In parallel, another structure arose - Roskomnadzor, in fact much more authoritative than the ministry, and called, as the name should be observed. What is quite logical: since there is a contingent, as without overseers ...

But what is characteristic: every time the next experiment ends and begins to understand the reasons for its failure, it turns out that the teacher’s sabotage is all to blame! Well, the teachers that have stumbled in their ignorance do not want to work in a new way. And they don’t want to retrain either. For reasons of corporate solidarity, I will still venture to assume that the matter is not at all in the inertness of teaching thinking.

From time immemorial, since the time of colleagues of Veulman, Kuteikin and Tsyfirkin, the figure of the Russian teacher, to put it mildly, has not caused sympathy. An illiterate, beggar, badly dressed and boring type. As an option - a person in a case. Today, of course, the generalized portrait of the teacher looks different. Firstly, this is, as a rule, a woman; Secondly, pre-retirement and retirement age.

Everything else has not changed. In any case, the main thing has not changed - the social status of a school teacher. From the point of view of society, the ideal teacher is a fanatic, an unrestrained who voluntarily devoted his life to other people's children. Moreover, he can not pay the salary for this - where he will go, will still work with full dedication, he is not for the sake of money ... And it is impossible to strike teachers who strive to cut them out of the already penniless salary - immorally. Washed trousers, worn shoes and hungry luster in the eyes are highly moral, and to achieve his, earned - immoral! It turns out that a immorally personal example to teach children self -esteem, to instill their self -esteem.

I think that it is in this, in the discrepancy between the social status and social role of the teacher in Russian society, that the main reason for the failure of any, even necessary, transformations that life requires.

In the eastern pedagogical tradition, the figure of a teacher with a small letter cannot be mentioned at all. Teacher, Guru, Muelim, Sensei, Ust, Sorrow - all these words designated and mean one thing: teacher, mentor. It was not easy to become a student of a particular teacher - the solution of a dozen tests here could not be bypassed. The student should really want to learn from him, and the teacher - want to teach him. The highest social status of the teacher, of course, could not be obtained, as an institute icon-“float”, simultaneously with a diploma. Society adequately contained both schools and mentors, since the teacher’s time is too precise to spend his thoughts about feeding himself and the family.

In the Western tradition, starting with ancient Greece, a teacher, a teacher - either a slave appointed to look after the child, or an employee - a servant, in essence. Something between the butler and the secretary. The slave can only raise a slave, and the servant can only be a servant. Even if the child is the future king or minister, he will still be a servant or slave: circumstances, his environment, his complexes, finally.

It is ridiculous to think about the “eastern” student to consider himself something above his teacher. The limit of the student’s dreams-someday, in the declining years, to achieve his level! And maybe become a teacher himself. It’s just as funny to think that the “Western” student counts himself in something below his teacher. The owner cannot be lower than the servant. With this example, the teacher’s position in expensive private schools for children of those who can afford it. The student is brought to school on Bentley, and, while approaching, he sees a teacher who was wandering there in the rain from the trolleybus stop.

Teacher's poverty is only one side of this inequality, and far from the main one. “Shadow, know your place! " - this magical phrase determines the current status of a teacher in our society. And this place is among other employees of sectors of the service sector, as established by federal law. Moreover, and the lowest of these industries, or even completely unprofitable. For the accounting of the thinking authorities, the unpleasantness of entrusted farm is a signal to its elimination, optimization or reorganization; Changing the school financing system - the transition to NSOT - once again clearly showed. Therefore, optimization is that there are still no profit, so at least reduce the costs ...

It is very likely that from the same series of reforms and unprecedented in pace, I would say a lightning -otic, transfer of a school into digital, average and standardized, training.

Perhaps the main reason for the above geographer-pedagogical differences lies in the initially different targets of the pedagogical process. The task of the guru is to educate the individual, the improvement of the individual, while the “Western” teacher brings up primarily a member of the collective, society. Of course, it is very, very difficult to lead a team, which is a set of full -developed (and conscious) personalities, and not primitive, standardized “cogs”. Rather, you can lead it, but manipulating it - no! However, the capabilities of these groups are not comparable. The only question is in the proper qualifications of the manager himself.

Where the leader himself is a person in the human and professional sense of the word, there is no place for stupid performers. The probability of a performing error, of course, is sharply reduced. And the wrong decision of the leader will be timely discovered and adjusted; In any case, the manager most likely will receive the information necessary for such correction in time and be able to use it.

The optimal combination of eastern personal and Western collectivist pedagogical ideologies seems optimal. However, this direction in pedagogy can not be called massive, again, due to the lack of properly trained teachers. Yes, what is there, prepared, even if not completely properly, and that is not enough catastrophically. Already, students are striving to the school to determine with full -fledged teachers. And men who wished to work at school, generally recently offered to enroll without exams to pedagogical universities - in the fact of having desire and pants. And at the same time, each teacher should now meet the professional standard. That is, to own absolutely the whole arsenal of the means of pedagogy, to be able to work with all, without exception, categories of children, and also freely manage any technical means.

And who will teach pedagogy?

In my opinion, there is another side of the modern pedagogical process, the underestimation of which reduces its effectiveness. We are talking about the balance of two components of pedagogy - the actual pedagogy (education) and didactics (training). Almost all pedagogical innovations of recent decades have been aimed at improving precisely and only didactics.

More precisely - the search and development of optimal ways of squeezing the maximum amount of information in the student for the minimum possible time. Moreover, those methods by which the long -term fixation of this information is also achieved by the most effective are the most effective.

Ideally, also the student’s ability to use it. In dreams - his ability to establish interdisciplinary connections, the use of the information that he received in the lessons of chemistry or geography in the lessons (say, history). The phenomenon of the same order is so fashionable now design and research activities of students; In essence - a game of science. Dangerous, in my opinion, game. However, like any experiments with children.

Meanwhile, it was upbringing that was priority not only in the traditional eastern, but also in many Western schools - for example, in monastery. A worldview was formed, and only information laid on this base. It is very likely that this circumstance was finally aware of those who form an educational policy. The recent initiative of the president regarding the strengthening of the educational component in education is clearly not accidental. True, we are talking about educating mainly military-patriotic and nationally oriented.

I myself am a non -religious person. However, as a teacher, I willingly recognize the powerful educational potential of Scripture, and it is not the essence of which-the Bible, the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Pentateuch or the Bhagavad-Gita. Future crusaders were taught to own the sword not to perform at tournaments, but for the holy work, and at first they had to firmly learn what its essence was. In our realities, the equivalent of this is, apparently, the amendment introduced to the Federal Law “On Education” in July 2005. This amendment is legalized primary military training in state educational institutions. For vaccination, presumably, proper patriotism from a young age. And to create a “right” image of the Russian army. Moreover, her real image of any desire to be there, it seems to me, does not cause.

A similar role should play a course of Orthodox culture (the history of world religions, etc.). The amendment has been adopted, the course has not been introduced. More precisely, introduced, but for some reason in fourth grades, than the commanding staff of the Russian Orthodox Church is very unhappy; With teaching the forces of subjects-subject teachers over 72 hours. From the point of view of the professional teacher, it's not even funny ...

At the Congress of the Russian Educational Community, held in April 2006, there were many nostalgically colored regrets addressed to the destroyed Soviet pedagogical system. There were enough calls to restore it. One single protest replica from the hall, reminding of the totalitarian nature of this system and its unsuitability in modern conditions, was instantly trampled and slammed by the rest of the present. It turns out that the initial thought is true - the mass average teacher is not ready to understand and realize progressive pedagogical ideas. It is understandable: the lion's share of today's teachers is made up of people who have studied in Soviet pedagogical universities and worked for many years in Soviet schools.

Perhaps the situation will change when they leave in a more or less natural way, freeing up the place for today's students? It is unlikely. The teacher training system has not fundamentally changed since the students were my peers - more than forty years ago. Profile departments at geographical faculties - physical and economic geography, landscape science, geology; on mathematical - all sorts of mathematics; On physical-again, a variety of physics.

And pedagogy? Has been and remains on the last roles, along with the teaching methodology. Let me remind you: we are talking about pedagogical universities. At my “native” geophaca of the MPSU, for example, there is no faculty department of pedagogy at all - there is an interfacial. It turns out that the pedagogical training of future teachers, from the point of view of those who form university programs, does not have much importance. In any case, it is less important than the preparation of scientific and profile. In the diplomas of pedagogical universities, in the column “specialty”, from now on there is no word “teacher”. Instead, there is written “Bachelor of Pedagogical Education”. With the right, of course, teaching at school. The right is good, but what about the ability? I do not think that the possibilities of pedagogical departments will greatly grow, even if these departments are generally preserved. And why do the faculty need them if he will stop releasing teachers, teachers actually?

Consequently, you do not have to count on the fact that young teachers, prepared in accordance with the requirements of pedagogy of the 21st century, will replace the older generation. There is nowhere to take them from, there are no opportunities for their preparation among weak -minded institute pedagogical departments. As a teacher with some experience, I am convinced: at any faculty of any pedagogical institute or university, the departments of pedagogy, teaching methods, general and age -related physiology and psychology can and should be specialized. The departments of extracurricular and extracurricular work, additional education and upbringing, class leadership, management of educational institutions are certainly necessary.

Of course, this is needed for personnel, time, money. But without such a leading reform of the training of teachers, any innovations at the school, even impressively necessary and not causing doubts, will not be realized - simply because there is no one to realize them! And in this situation the current one will not help in this situation, I would say, the unbridled computerization of the educational process, since it is completely and it is a substitution of the target with means.

Of course, the future subject teacher must have sufficient knowledge in his field, and in the adjacent ones too. But to read the students of the geochemistry of the landscape or ancient Russian literature, it is quite possible to invite a university professor to students. I read the course, took the exam, received a salary and left.

I believe that there is no need to prove priority for the teacher precisely pedagogical training. The owners of the “crystal pelican” of various levels at all children will not be enough, even taking into account the demographic pit of the beginning of the current century. And they, judging by the criteria for selecting these “teachers of the year”, were not studied by the institutes for which they were crowned with laurels, cars and prize computers. However, I personally did not participate in such events and are not going to. К школе они имеют примерно такое же отношение, как олимпийские игры к массовой физкультуре…

Школа без учителя не имеет будущего. Как не имеет его страна без школы. Так вот, школы в России уже нет. А есть на сегодняшний день не школа, а ГБОУ (государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение). Или, скажем, НОУ (оно же — негосударственное) и МОУ (то же самое — но муниципальное). Are you catching the difference? Вместо театра или цирка — ГРУ (государственное развлекательное учреждение), а вместо трамвайного парка — например, МТУ (муниципальное транспортное). Funny? In my opinion, no. Ваш ребенок уже учится не в школе, а в МОУ СОШ или ГОУ ЦО, а будет вскорости — в АУ или КУ. Самое страшное, что это не высосанные из пальца педагогические фантазии корифеев из Российской академии образования, а уже реализованная действительность!

Я не прогнозирую будущее, а констатирую настоящее. Сегодняшняя российская реальность в области среднего образования — это учреждение вместо школы, контингент вместо школьника и сотрудник вместо Учителя. Глупо, опасно и непрофессионально.

Леонид Перлов , учитель,
почетный работник общего образования РФ (г. Москва)