Translated material
And to live in shape!
With the presentation of the Ministry of Traffic, the question of the introduction of a single school uniform again appeared. Why and who needs giant expenses
The discussion about the school uniform has come, perhaps, from the very moment when it has ceased to be mandatory - that is, for three decades. Once every few years, another hot debate flare up between her supporters and opponents, the opinions of teachers, children and parents diverge. Some schools and gymnasiums introduce its obligatory wearing on their own, making changes to the charters, some do not think about it. So far, this is a free zone: the presence and type of school uniforms is not prescribed in the federal law, but is given to the administrations of educational institutions and school councils.
And now - a new surge, this time with the serving of the minister.
The head of the Ministry of Education, Sergei Kravtsov, announced plans to introduce a unified school uniform in all institutions of basic general and secondary education, in this matter he expects to support the parliament in the person of specialized State Duma committees.
“In the future, we consider it important to find a legislative solution together - the first - additional support of the status of the Russian language as a state language. The second is the introduction of the school uniform. Let each school independently determine which one, ”said Kravtsov.
The initiative of the Ministry of Protection was already supported by the speaker of the lower house Vyacheslav Volodin:
“We will try to consider the legislative initiative, despite the fact that it is jointly, and go to adoption, given that almost all the deputies supported us. The quality of education will grow, which means that as a result there will be our domestic technologies, the economy will develop and everything will be fine. ”
As the color of the shirt of schoolchildren and the development of the economy are connected, Volodin did not specify.
Then there were explanations: no one is introducing the school uniform yet: “This is a topic for discussion,” Tatyana Vasilieva, Deputy Minister of Education of Russia, told RIA Novosti.
The school uniform is an eternal problem for Russia, it is hanging like a curse for decades, as if nothing more important is more important.
And not ambiguous. If with the political instructions in the person of advisers to educate or “talk about the important” everything is extremely clear: both goals and methods of implementation. But about the question of how children need to look, there is still a place for discussions.
Vsevolod Lukhovitsky,
co -chairman of the education union "Teacher":
“This is a positive point for the manufacturer. For everyone else, in my opinion, this is a negative moment. Parents will have to fork out. This will be an extremely profitable order, much more profitable than, for example, the publication of textbooks. The requirements for school form can be very extensible - you can save on anything and receive giant money. When parents agree with this, the original version of the form is developed, then this school and this form are proud of this form. Now this happens in the so -called "good" schools. "
Daniil Ken*,
The head of the Teachers Alliance union **, the initiative also does not support:
“At the moment, educational institutions have the right to consolidate some clothing requirements. They want to take a small piece of freedom from schools. The big question is who will be a single supplier. Even now, millions of families have problems to gather the child to school. The state risks creating such an artificial inequality when everyone who refuses to buy a form will aggravate a social problem. Any unification is ideologically colored. "
Katerina Demina,
psychologist:
- The discussion about school uniform has been going on, it seems, from the nineties, but almost always ends with nothing. Why?
- The discussion about the school uniform choked starting from the nineties, because there was no money for this. I think that the young generation does not know about this - the school uniform was very much subsidized. In fact, our parents paid at best 10% of its value. It was a state order. Now, if you subsidize, these are some kind of unusual billions, in the spending of which no one is interested. In addition, let's not forget that the school uniform, for example, for girls before her cancellation in the early nineties, was sewn from the Indian and Afghan cashmere, which was actually supplied to us for nothing. And now, if you subtract, it will be synthetics - all this is very difficult.
- If we talk about the smoothing of social inequality: does the school form perform these functions?
- On the other hand, the school form that exists in the world is an indicator of the elitism of education. The school uniform has only very expensive private schools or lyceums. And they are proud of her. You go along the street in some European city-you see a child in uniform, and you immediately understand what school he is in. In private schools in Russia, there is also a school uniform, therefore, the school form does not fulfill its function of smoothing social inequality. On the contrary, now the school uniform works for a demonstration of inequality.
- In your opinion, you need to leave the question of the presence of a school uniform on the conscience of the administrations of educational institutions or is general legislative regulation necessary?
- Those schools that are proud of their strict structure - they introduce the school uniform. But this means an additional financial burden on parents. When I, the youngest studied and tried to introduce the school uniform - my parents just got on its hind legs, because it was a clearly corrupt order: only one manufacturer, only in one store, only one type of form. And it was expensive. And given how speed the children grow, if, for example, two or three children in the same school, this is just a lot of money. Therefore, parents usually achieve this so that this is not.
It’s one thing, you buy jeans and a sweatshirt on some cheap collapse to children, which they still make the same way and it will still be torn, thrown out, flooded. And another thing is when it is a strict form. Plus, attempts to introduce an “office style” at school - it is non -violeological for children. Physiologically for children - free, soft, not constraining movements of clothing. You can introduce some cultural norms, for example, “no bare parts”-this is normal. But introducing the style, type of cell, color, compulsory ties - this is an attempt to make small office adults out of children. It is not at all clear why. Rather, it’s clear why. To make it pleasant to the eye. Whose eye? Minobra? It's so beautiful when the same children stand on the ruler! From the point of view of psychology, this is complete nonsense.
One of the purpose of the form is to make everyone the same and remove self -expression. Question: Why do this and who needs it? I have answers to him, but I don’t know if you will like them.
I remember by myself that the class in our school is the general requirements for the form of clothing, of course, they did not perform any function of smoothing social inequality. Moreover, after the second change, especially in elementary school, something was crumpled from all this beauty and with traces of breakfast and battles.
Why then all these conversations? Because of the longing for the Soviet. Otherwise, the school has already rolled up in the eighties: “counselors”, ruler with flags, brainwashing. In everything - except for the quality of education, which then, as the teachers say, was higher. And the lack of form is about the freedom of the person who is so hated now.