Issues of school management in the history of Russian pedagogy. Work: History of Russian pedagogy. Pedagogical principles of Ushinsky

Control– the process of influencing a system in order to transfer it to a new state based on the use of objective laws inherent in this system.

Basics of school management- this is the creation of conditions for the normal flow of the educational process.

Head teacher must ensure a high level of planning, organization, and control. Director - accomplice pedagogical process, co-defendant, he is directly involved in the work of the school team in teaching and raising children, he constantly works with people: teachers, students, parents of children.

Management methods- these are ways of influencing one or another link of the control system on other, lower links or controlled objects in order to achieve the intended management goals. Guidance Methods– ways of influencing people who realize these goals.

Leadership style depends on objective factors(working conditions, specifics of the tasks being solved, level of development of the team), and on factors subjective(personality characteristics of the leader, the degree of his preparedness, etc.).

Highlight three main leadership styles: authoritarian, liberal and democratic.

Most consistent with management principles democratic leadership style, which is based on the right combination of collegiality and unity of command, assumes the active participation of public organizations and all teachers in making management decisions at the school.

In the largest schools there is linear system. The director exercises leadership through his assistants.

In universities and large complexes it operates functional system management.

TO basic management functions include analysis and planning, organization and control, coordination and stimulation.

Analysis- this is the basis on which the entire system of planning and organizing the educational process rests.

Planning as one of the most important management functions includes determining the most appropriate ways to achieve set goals. It is designed to generate plans, projects, programs, standards, standards, criteria, etc.

Organization is the formation and establishment of relatively stable relationships in managed and control systems that act and develop as one whole.

Coordination assumes high efficiency in establishing harmony between all links and directions of the educational process, between the control and managed systems, changes in relationships, motivation, involvement in work, and growth in creative activity.

Control– this is the active stage of the management process, when the achieved results are compared with what was planned. The basis of the entire system of control measurements (quantitative and qualitative) is feedback.

Stimulation is a system of measures aimed at creating a creative teaching staff and active, purposeful activities of students.

The most important regularity management is unity in the ultimate goals and objectives of administrative, pedagogical, family and social influence and the process of shaping the personality of schoolchildren.

For this pattern to manifest itself, coordination of the actions of the school, family and community is very important.

90. BASIC PROVISIONS OF THE RF LAW “ON EDUCATION”

In law Russian Federation“On Education” contains the basic principles and provisions on the basis of which both the strategy and tactics for implementing legally enshrined ideas for the development of education in Russia will be built.

These provisions are addressed simultaneously to society, to the education system itself, to the individual and provide both external social and pedagogical conditions development of the education system, and internal pedagogical conditions themselves her full life.

These include:

– humanistic nature of education;

– priority of universal human values;

– free development of personality;

– universal access to education;

– free education;

– comprehensive protection of the education consumer.

Special meaning in managing the functioning and development of schools, they have to maintain the unity of the federal, cultural and educational space; freedom and pluralism in education; openness of education, democratic, state-public nature of education management; the secular nature of education in state and municipal educational institutions; receiving education in your native language; connection of education with national and regional cultures and traditions; continuity of educational programs; variability of education; delimitation of competencies of system subjects.

Central link The educational system in the Russian Federation is general secondary education, including secondary schools, schools with in-depth study of individual subjects, gymnasiums, lyceums, evening schools, boarding educational institutions, special schools for children with disabilities in physical and mental development, out-of-school educational institutions.

Main tasks general educational institutions are: creating favorable conditions for the mental, moral, emotional and physical development of the individual; development of a scientific worldview; students’ mastery of a system of knowledge about nature, society, man, his work and methods of independent activity.

In accordance with the Law “On Education” (Articles 21–23), the interpretation of traditionally existing vocational and secondary specialized education, which is now considered as primary and secondary vocational education, is new. Primary vocational education is aimed at training qualified workers in all main areas of socially useful activities, as a rule, on the basis of basic general education (basic school).

Secondary vocational education is focused on training mid-level specialists for all industries National economy on the basis of basic general, secondary (complete) general or primary vocational education.

The modern school is developing in market conditions and new economic relations. The Law on Education and specific conditions of material support require school leaders to adopt fundamentally new approaches to school management.

First of all, the Law requires the establishment of educational standards. This is necessary in the context of multidisciplinary and multi-level secondary education in order to ensure equivalent secondary education for graduates of all types of secondary educational institutions.

General view

The history of the national school and pedagogy of the Soviet period turned out to be extremely dramatic and contradictory. The upward movement of education and the increase in pedagogical knowledge occurred in social conditions that made free ideological debate difficult, in an atmosphere of repression, dictatorship and censorship of official authorities, reduced contacts with the world school and pedagogy, and poor use of the experience of Russian and foreign schools and pedagogy.

During the Soviet period, an educational system was formed that strictly subordinated the individual and his interests to society, placing the introduction of political and ideological doctrines into the consciousness of students. The communist education system turned out to be powerful and effective. The overwhelming majority of people formed by this system sincerely supported the existing political regime. Those who doubted were destroyed or forced into silence.

In the history of the national school and pedagogy of the Soviet period, three major stages are distinguished: 1917 - early 1930s, 1930s and 1945-1991. At these stages, with a certain continuity of school policy and pedagogical thought, important features and specific features emerged.

School and school policy

In 1917, at the beginning of the first stage of the development of the Soviet school, the Bolsheviks who came to power intended to rule Russia, using school and teaching as instruments of their influence. “The fate of the Russian revolution directly depends on how quickly the mass of teachers will side with the Soviet government,” stated the documents of the VIII Congress of the Russian Communist Party (RCP) (1918).

Prominent figures of the RCP were put in charge of school affairs: N.K. Krupskaya, A.V. Lunacharsky, M.N. Pokrovsky. The leaders of the Bolshevik Party became involved in solving educational problems, viewing them as decisive for the fate of the country.

Anatoly Vasilievich Lunacharsky(1875-1933), heading the People's Commissariat for Education until 1929, was involved in promoting communist ideas of education and implementing Bolshevik school reforms. He clearly emphasized the expediency of forming a person primarily in the interests of society.

The main ideologist of Narkompros was Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya(1869-1939). She was a conductor of the ideas of communist education of the younger generation. Krupskaya owns numerous articles and brochures on issues of labor training, polytechnic education, teacher education, preschool and out-of-school education, content and methods of teaching.

Soon after October 1917, the destruction of the existing education system began. Previous school management structures were destroyed, private educational institutions were closed, and the teaching of ancient languages and religion was prohibited. Throughout 1918, a number of government documents were issued that were supposed to become the legislative basis for school reform: on the separation of church from state and school from church, on the right of non-Russian peoples to open educational institutions with teaching in their native language, on the introduction of joint education, etc.

During the 1920s. The pre-revolutionary structure of school education was virtually eliminated. "Regulations on the unified labor school" And "Declaration on a unified labor school"(October 1918) a unified system of joint and free general education was introduced with two levels: 1st level - 5 years of study and 2nd level - 4 years of study. The right of all citizens to education, regardless of race, nationality and social status, equality in education for women and men, school in their native language, unconditional secular education, and education based on combination with productive labor were proclaimed.

In the 1920s options for the structure of school education were tested, new curricula were prepared, labor training and school self-government were introduced. A state system of experimental and demonstration educational institutions (EDE) was founded. At the same time, the Bolshevik politicization of education took place.

The first destructive actions of the Bolsheviks encountered resistance from teachers and educators, primarily from the All-Russian Teachers' Union, which numbered up to 75 thousand members. Local teachers often refused to submit to Soviet authority. They accused the communists of terror and an attack on democracy. In December 1917 - March 1918, a massive strike of teachers took place, the participants of which insisted on a democratic solution to the problems of education.

In response, the new authorities resorted to a policy of carrots and sticks. The All-Russian Teachers' Union was banned, the strike was declared illegal. A new Union of Internationalist Teachers was created (later the All-Russian Union of Education Workers and Socialist Culture), which was under the complete control of the Bolsheviks. At the same time, the government promised to raise the teacher to a height where he had never stood before. However, in conditions civil war these promises seemed more like a way to win over teachers than a genuine change in school policy.

The optimistic promises of the Bolsheviks and the school reality were in blatant contradiction. The school buildings were in disrepair. Textbooks could only be obtained for a lot of money. There was not enough paper and ink for the students. There was a massive departure of teachers from schools. The established network of educational institutions crumbled.

By 1917 Russia remained a country of mass illiteracy. On the outskirts, literacy of the population was only 23%. Only in the capitals was the literacy rate comparatively higher - about 50%.

In the first years after the Civil War (1920-1925), a campaign to eradicate illiteracy was announced. In 1920, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for the Elimination of Illiteracy was created, headed by N.K. Krupskaya. The restoration of the network of educational institutions has begun. The number of secondary schools in rural areas gradually increased (in the 1920/21 academic year there were over 2 thousand). But no particular success due to the hardest economic conditions was not achieved. The children and the school were victims of devastation and hunger. In the Volga region alone in 1921, about 3 million children and adolescents starved. Many died. The share of education in the budget, which reached 10% in 1920, fell to 2-3% in 1922. During 1921-1925. the age of secondary school students was reduced from 17 to 15 years old, the school network was reduced, many educational institutions lost state support and existed at the expense of the local population (“contract schools”), tuition fees were introduced in schools of the 1st and 2nd levels .

In the second half of the 1920s. school education gradually began to emerge from a deep crisis. In the 1927/28 academic year, the number of educational institutions increased by 10% compared to 1913, and the number of students - by 43%. If in the 1922/23 academic year there were about 61.6 thousand schools on the territory of the RSFSR, then in the 1928/29 academic year their number reached 85.3 thousand. Over the same period, the number of 7-year schools increased 5.3 times , and there are twice as many students in them. The country has approached the introduction of universal primary education. In 1930 it was introduced as compulsory primary (four-year education).

In the 1920s continued their search experimental demonstration institutions, which were led by the most qualified teachers: S.T. Shatsky(First experimental station), MM. Pistrak(commune school), A.S. Tolstoy(Gaginskaya station), N.I. Popova(Second Experimental Demonstration Station) and other educational institutions were the pioneers of a different organization of training. They preserved the spirit of the experimental schools of pre-revolutionary Russia and became the initiators of various innovations: comprehensive educational programs, Western forms and methods of teaching (Dalton Plan, Project Method, etc.), labor training, etc.

People's Commissariat Education organized programmatic and methodological work. The results of this work were programs and plans for comprehensive schools in 1921, 1922, 1923, 1925, 1927, 1929, compiled on the basis of the principles of comprehensive construction of educational material (by topics and directions, and not by academic subjects and disciplines). Valuable in comprehensive programs There were attempts to link learning with the life around us, to resist the formalism and scholasticism of the traditional school, to encourage the cognitive activity of students through the so-called active methods ("active labor", "research", "laboratory", "excursion", etc.).

During the 1920s, several systems and types of educational institutions were tested experimentally: a 9-year general education school (4+5 or 5+4), a 9-year school with specializations (vocational centers), a 9-year factory school. When organizing them, they tried to take into account the conditions of the region, the characteristics of the student population, etc.

But overall there was a significant increase in the effectiveness of teaching in the 1920s. Did not happen. School institutions performed unsatisfactorily. The amount of knowledge acquired by secondary school students was insufficient. The school formed a personality far from the ideals of domestic democratic pedagogy, who was little interested in literature, art, life relationships, and more in self-government, political events and other types of social activities. Collectivism and self-government in education degenerated into conformism and manipulation of children. Instead of childish activity, obedience was instilled.

Major changes in school education occurred in the 1930s. The country's leadership and the CPSU (b) adopted a resolution About primary and secondary school(1931), where the poor preparation of students was stated and it was planned to transfer the school to subject programs.

The quality of teaching gradually improved. This became possible primarily as a result of the creation of a stable school system with successive levels. Stable programs and a clear organization of training contributed to overcoming the education crisis. Strengths of the 1930s reforms – the emergence of a harmonious structure of successive subsystems (from elementary to higher), regular subject instruction, a unified class schedule, the introduction of standard programs and textbooks. However, the new system was fraught with flaws that subsequently negatively affected the school: the lack of alternatives and excessive unification of the principles, content and organization of the educational process, and the refusal to differentiate in teaching. Partially, such shortcomings were compensated by the efforts of ordinary teachers, spontaneous differentiation (when some students went to vocational schools, and others to higher educational institutions), and the activities of educational institutions, which provided examples of education on the basis of independence, activity, and the ability to navigate the environment.

An important consequence of the policy to increase the educational level of the population was the organization by the end of the 1930s. in cities universal 7-year education. At the same time illiteracy continued to be a pressing problem. Thus, in 1939, every 5th resident over 10 years old could not read and write.

In the 1930s there was a departure from the expedient pedagogical innovations of the 20s. The spirit of the barracks was instilled in educational institutions, and self-government was abolished. In general education schools, labor education was curtailed and there was a return to the conservative traditions of gymnasium education. The public control system was abolished. At school, as throughout society, the cult of Stalin’s personality was intensively instilled.

The school found itself in an extremely difficult situation during the Great Patriotic War. Patriotic War(1941-1945). A lot of children were deprived of the opportunity to study. In the 1941/42 academic year in the RSFSR, 25% of students did not attend school. Subsequently, the situation improved somewhat: in the 1942/43 academic year, 17% of children of primary school age did not attend classes, in the 1943/44 academic year - 15%, in the 1944/45 academic year -10-12%. During the war, on the territory of the RSFSR alone, the Nazis destroyed about 20 thousand school buildings. For example, in the Moscow region by the summer of 1943, 91.8% of school buildings were actually destroyed or dilapidated, in the Leningrad region - 83.2%. Almost all schools in the combat zones stopped working. In the first war school year of 1941/42, the number of students in fourth grade decreased by a third. During the war, the number of secondary schools decreased by a third. Many school buildings were occupied by barracks, hospitals, factories (in the RSFSR in November 1941 - up to 3 thousand). Classes in 2-3 and 4 shifts were common.

During the war years, government decisions were made regarding school education: on the education of children from the age of 7 (1943), on the establishment of comprehensive schools for working youth (1943), on the opening of evening schools in rural areas (1944), on the introduction of a five-point grading system academic performance and behavior of students (1944), on the establishment of final examinations at the end of primary, seven-year and secondary schools (1944), on the awarding of gold and silver medals to distinguished secondary school students (1944), etc.

Curricula and programs were adjusted. They have been partially reduced. At the same time, military-defense topics and military-physical training were introduced.

Many children and teenagers systematically took part in agricultural work and the construction of defensive structures. In total, during the war years, about 20 million schoolchildren took part in agricultural work during the summer holidays. Teenagers - students of vocational and secondary schools - worked in industrial enterprises. Thousands of teachers and school-age children took part in the battles with weapons in their hands.

The priority of school policy in 1945-1950. became universal primary and seven-year education. During 1945-1950. the number of students in grades 5-8 in the RSFSR more than doubled and reached 7.4 million. The implementation of universal primary and seven-year education was accompanied by enormous difficulties. There were not enough school buildings, school writing materials, and textbooks. Gradually, however, the situation improved. In general, by the beginning of the 1950s. Russian school switched to universal seven-year education.

The next step in school policy was the transition to universal eight-year education. Such a reform was envisaged "Law on strengthening the connection between school and life and on the further development of the public education system in the USSR"(1958). The reform took place through the transformation of 7-year schools into 8-year ones. The transition to eight-year universal education required the rationalization of the school system, in particular, the creation of boarding schools in rural areas, the training of additional teaching staff, and the elimination of repetition. By the 1961/62 academic year, the reorganization of 7-year schools into 8-year ones was completed. By 1970, implementation was largely completed compulsory eight years of education.

Next it was planned to gradually introduce universal ten-year education. By the end of the 1950s. the system of educational institutions of secondary education was determined: 1) three-year comprehensive schools; 2) three-year evening schools; 3) technical schools and other educational institutions.

Since the mid-1960s. the transition to universal secondary education was placed at the center of school policy. This problem was supposed to be solved by the mid-1970s. In 1975, in the USSR as a whole, 96% of eight-year school graduates attended various educational institutions that provided complete secondary education.

By the beginning of the 1980s. The creative potential of the existing school system was largely exhausted. Bureaucratization, unification, total ideological indoctrination, and a line towards egalitarian (egalitarian) education turned the school into a closed institution, divorced from life. The interests of the individual child and the initiative of teachers were increasingly ignored. Statistics on the mass enrollment of children and adolescents in compulsory school education, high percentages of academic performance hid troubles that were becoming more and more painful: a lack of scientific and pedagogical justification for the educational process, a lack of necessary financial, human and other resources, an actually low level of training for the mass of students, and an increase in non-attendance.

The USSR failed to eliminate illiteracy. In 1959, 33% of the population had a 1st or 2nd grade education or was completely illiterate, in 1970 - 22%, in 1979 -11%. Illiteracy and illiteracy were especially widespread among women in rural areas (50% in 1959).

An unsuccessful attempt to overcome the crisis was school reform 1984 The plans envisaged by the reform to merge general and vocational education, professionalize the general education school, and strengthen uniformity in the system of vocational and technical education through the establishment of a new link - a secondary vocational school (SPTU), turned out to be far-fetched and only aggravated the education crisis.

During the collapse of the USSR in the second half of the 1980s - early 1990s. The Russian school system became increasingly inconsistent with social and educational needs. The gap between the proclaimed lofty goals of education and the results of school education and upbringing grew wider. This was expressed in a decrease in the level of academic performance, a drop in interest in education, a deterioration in the health of students, and antisocial behavior of children and adolescents.

Related information.

Similar material:

Explanatory note to the scheme “School Management System”, 76.61kb.
Analysis of school management and the activities of the administration to control education 2008/2009, 98.34kb.
Development of education and pedagogical thought on the territory of Belarus in the 60s. XIX beginning, 1279.26kb.
, 265.8kb.
Boarding school development program No. 1 for 2010-2015, 936.47kb.
Basic functions of pedagogical management, 108.13kb.
Political and legal process in domestic education 1801-1917, 824.49kb.
Lesson on the history of the ancient world in 5th grade. Topic: Ancient Greek school, 165.01kb.
From the history of the school, 855.66kb.
Planning as a management function. Organization as a management function, 91.13kb.

Educational systems management

Topic: “Organization of school management in the history of pedagogy.”

(2 hours).

M.V. Lomonosov’s formulation of issues of school organization.
Administrative and pedagogical activities of N.I. Pirogov.
K.D. Ushinsky is a reformer of educational institutions.
L.N. Tolstoy is the creator of the people's school of free development.
Inspector and director of public schools I.N. Ulyanov.
Modern ideas of teachers about management.

Literature:

Akhtamzyan N.A. System of state-public management of education in Germany // Pedagogy. – 2004. - No. 6. – p.85-93.
Goncharov N.K. Pedagogical system K.D. Ushinsky. - M., 1974.

3. Ivansky A.I. Ilya Nikolaevich Ulyanov. According to the memoirs of contemporaries and documents. - M., 1963.

4. History of Pedagogy: A Textbook for Pedagogical Students. Institute / I.L. Konstantinov, E.N. Medynsky, M.F. Shabaeva. - M., 1982.

5. Krasnovsky A.A. Pedagogical ideas of N.I. Pirogov. - M., 1949.

6. Morozova O.P. Pedagogical workshop. – M.: Academy, 2000.

7. Perevalova L.A. Pedagogical views of M.V. Lomonosov. - M., 1964.

8. Smirnov A.V. About one of the possible ways of developing a school in the 21st century // Science and Life. - 1999. - No. 2.

9. Tolstoy L.I. Pedagogical works / Comp. N.V. Veikshan. - M, 1984.

Management of educational systems / Ed. V.S. Kukushina. – M., 2003. – p. 21-77.

Tasks:

Read the article by Akhtamzyan N.A. and conduct a comparative analysis of management systems in Germany and Russia. Prepare a report on this issue.
Solve pedagogical problems proposed in the workshop by O.P. Morozova: No. 1, 2, 3, 8 (p. 298-300).
Prepare an abstract report on the article by Smirnov A.V.

Topic: “School documentation and equipment.”

1. Functions of intra-school information, reporting and educational and pedagogical information.

2. Teacher documentation.

3. Documentation of school leaders.

4. Financial receipts, school budget.

5. Acquisition, storage and use of visual aids and technical aids, equipment of offices.

Literature:

1. Pedagogy / Under. ed. P.I. Faggot. - M., 1998.

2. Sergeeva V.P. Management of educational systems. – M., 2000. – pp. 109-114.

3. Frish G.L. Documentation (a short practical guide to writing management briefs). - M., 1999.

Topic: “School Pedagogical Council.”

Contents of the work of the Pedagogical Council.
Methodology for conducting the Pedagogical Council.
Characteristics of the stages of preparation and conduct of teacher councils.
Non-traditional forms of pedagogical councils.

Literature:

Pedagogy /Ed. P.I.Pidkasisty. - M., 1998. - ed. 3. - p. 578-582.
Berezhnova L., Lapteva L. Teachers’ council: school practice //Public education. – 2003. - No. 5.
Bochkova L. Teachers' Council: preparation, conduct, results // School Director. – 1998. - No. 7.
Selevko G.K. Non-traditional forms of pedagogical councils //Public education. – 1998. - No. 4.
Selevko G.K. Technologies of pedagogical councils // School technologies. – 1998. - No. 3.

Tasks.

Study (analyze and make extracts) the proposed literature on the topic of the lesson.
Compare the work of teachers' councils with new forms of school-wide school management - the School Council and the Board of Trustees. Use the materials from the textbook “Pedagogy” / Ed. P.I. Pidkasisty and articles: Bochkarev V.I. On the functions of the school council // Pedagogy. – 1992. - No. 1-2; Borscheva N. Board of Trustees - a public form of management of an educational institution //Public education. – 2001. - No. 10.

Topic: “Diagnostics of the quality and results of a teacher’s professional activity.”

1. Basic stereotypes of a teacher’s activity. (Skok G.B.S. 50-51).

2. The teacher’s activities to enhance student activity. (Skok G.B.S. 53).

3. The teacher’s activities to create a positive emotional mood and regulate behavior in the classroom. (Skok G.B.S. 56-58).

4. Evaluation of teaching activities:

Students’ opinions about the quality of teaching activities;

Quality of the lesson;

Self-esteem;

Final result;

Methodological support;

Parents' opinion;

Opinions of former students.

5. Opinion of the administration. Characteristic analysis.

6. Applications. Results of the analysis of the teacher's pedagogical activity. (Skok G.B.S. 98-99).

Literature:

1. Bordovskaya N.V., Rean A.A. Pedagogy: Textbook for universities. - St. Petersburg, 2000.

2. Zvereva V.I. Certification // Diagnostics and examination of the pedagogical activities of certified teachers. - M., 1998.

3. Makarova L.V. Teacher: activity model and certification / Under. ed. prof. V.L. Balanina. - M., 1992. - P. 148.

4. Assessment and certification of education personnel abroad. A manual for employees of educational authorities and educational institutions /Under. ed. Ph.D. ped. Sciences, Associate Professor Yu.S. Alferova and corresponding member. RAO, Dr. - Psychol. Sciences V.S. Lazazeva. - M., 1997.

5. Pidkasisty P.I. Essential characteristics of cognitive activity //Vestnik high school. - 1985. - No. 9. - P. 35-39.

6. Simonov V.P. Diagnosis of the personality and professional skills of the teacher. - M., 1995.

7. Skok G.B. Certification of teachers: preparation and implementation: Textbook / Responsible. ed. Yu.A. Kudryavtsev. - Novosibirsk: NSTU, 1993. - P. 63.

8. Skok G.B. How to predict your own teaching activity: Textbook. - M., 1998.

Topic: “Self-education of teachers.”

1. The purpose, objectives and forms of self-education of teachers.

2. Methodological associations; their structure and content of activity.

3. School of excellence: mentoring, problem groups, workshops.

4. Organization of open and demonstration lessons.

5. Scientific and theoretical conferences and pedagogical readings.

6. Advanced training courses. Tasks. Periodicity.

7. Self-education and self-education techniques.

8. Testing (methodology for identifying the degree of development of a teacher’s organizational skills).

Literature:

1. Gromkova M.T. If you are a teacher. M., 1998.

2. Kovalev A.G. Team and socio-psychological problems of management. - M., 1978.

3. Kuzmina N.V. Essays on the psychology of teacher work. - L., 1967.

4. Krutetsky V.A. Fundamentals of educational psychology. - M., 1972.

5. Petrovsky A.V. Abilities and work. - M., 1966. "

6. Ruvinsky L.I. Self-education of feelings of intellect, will. - M., 1983.

7. Stankin M.I. Professional abilities of a teacher. - Flint, 1998.

Topic: “Communication and conflicts in teaching activities in the school community.”

1. Identification of the objective cause of the conflict.

2. Transition from the emotional level to the rational.

3. Conflict resolution.

Direct path to eliminate consequences

Conflict.

Indirect ways to eliminate the consequences of the conflict.

4. Conflict manager.

5. Avoiding conflict.

6. Testing.

Literature:

1. Bodalev A.A. Personality and communication. - M., 1993.

2. Borodkin F.M., Koryak N.M. Attention - conflict! - Novosibirsk, 1989.

3. Veresov N.N. The formula for confrontation, or how to eliminate conflict in a team. - M., 1998.

4. Kan-Kalik V.A. To the teacher about pedagogical communication. - M., 1987.

5. Morozova O.P. Pedagogical workshop. – M.: Academy, 2000.

6. Stankin M.I. Professional abilities of a teacher. - Flint, 1998.

7. Tseng N.V., Pakhomov Yu.V. Psychotraining games and exercises. - M., 1988.

Tasks:

Solve the pedagogical problem presented in the workshop by O.P. Morozova - No. 6 (p. 300).
Approbation of psycho-trainings and exercises.

Questions for the colloquium

Based on the book by V.A. Sukhomlinsky “Conversation with a young school director.”

What are the main problems of a teacher’s creative work?
The essence of leading the creative work of a team?
The main pedagogical phenomena of the school. Their essence and interdependence.
Components of a teacher's pedagogical culture.
Ways to improve the general culture of teachers and students.
What does it mean to be a humane teacher?
Who are they - difficult children?
Fundamentals of moral education of the younger generation. Rules of moral education.
Visit and analysis of lessons by the director.
The main directions of summing up the results of the academic year.

Basic literature for the course.

Vorobyova S.V. Fundamentals of educational systems management. – M.: Academy, 2008.
Zaitseva I.A. and others. Management of educational systems. – M.: MaRT, 2003.
Panferova N.N. Management in the education system. – Rostovn/D: Phoenix, 2010
Sergeeva V.P. Management of educational systems. – M., 2000. – 136 p.
Management of educational systems / Ed. V.S. Kukushina. – M., 2003. – 464 p.
Shamova T.I., Davydenko T.M., Shibanova G.N. Management of educational systems. – M., 2002. – 384 p.

School and school policy

In response, the new authorities resorted to a policy of carrots and sticks. The All-Russian Teachers' Union was banned, the strike was declared illegal. A new Union of Internationalist Teachers was created (later the All-Russian Union of Education Workers and Socialist Culture), which was under the complete control of the Bolsheviks. At the same time, the government promised to raise the teacher to a height where he had never stood before. However, in the context of the Civil War, these promises seemed more like a way to win over teachers than a genuine change in school policy.

By 1917 Russia remained a country of mass illiteracy. On the outskirts, literacy of the population was only 23%. Only in the capitals was the literacy rate comparatively higher - about 50%.

In the first years after the Civil War (1920-1925), a campaign to eradicate illiteracy was announced. In 1920, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for the Elimination of Illiteracy was created, headed by N.K. Krupskaya. The restoration of the network of educational institutions has begun. The number of secondary schools in rural areas gradually increased (in the 1920/21 academic year there were over 2 thousand). But no particular success was achieved due to difficult economic conditions. The children and the school were victims of devastation and hunger. In the Volga region alone in 1921, about 3 million children and adolescents starved. Many died. The share of education in the budget, which reached 10% in 1920, fell to 2-3% in 1922. During 1921-1925. the age of secondary school students was reduced from 17 to 15 years old, the school network was reduced, many educational institutions lost state support and existed at the expense of the local population (“contract schools”), tuition fees were introduced in schools of the 1st and 2nd levels .

The People's Commissariat of Education organized programmatic and methodological work. The results of this work were programs and plans for comprehensive schools in 1921, 1922, 1923, 1925, 1927, 1929, compiled on the basis of the principles of comprehensive construction of educational material (by topics and directions, and not by academic subjects and disciplines). Valuable in comprehensive programs There were attempts to link learning with the life around us, to resist the formalism and scholasticism of the traditional school, to encourage the cognitive activity of students through the so-called active methods ("active labor", "research", "laboratory", "excursion", etc.).

The school found itself in an extremely difficult situation during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). A lot of children were deprived of the opportunity to study. In the 1941/42 academic year in the RSFSR, 25% of students did not attend school. Subsequently, the situation improved somewhat: in the 1942/43 academic year, 17% of children of primary school age did not attend classes, in the 1943/44 academic year - 15%, in the 1944/45 academic year -10-12%. During the war, on the territory of the RSFSR alone, the Nazis destroyed about 20 thousand school buildings. For example, in the Moscow region by the summer of 1943, 91.8% of school buildings were actually destroyed or dilapidated, in the Leningrad region - 83.2%. Almost all schools in the combat zones stopped working. In the first war school year of 1941/42, the number of students in fourth grade decreased by a third. During the war, the number of secondary schools decreased by a third. Many school buildings were occupied by barracks, hospitals, factories (in the RSFSR in November 1941 - up to 3 thousand). Classes in 2-3 and 4 shifts were common.

Curricula and programs were adjusted. They have been partially reduced. At the same time, military-defense topics and military-physical training were introduced.

The next step in school policy was the transition to universal eight-year education. Such a reform was envisaged "The law on strengthening the connection between school and life and on the further development of the system of folk education in the USSR"(1958). The reform took place through the transformation of 7-year schools into 8-year ones. The transition to eight-year universal education required the rationalization of the school system, in particular, the creation of boarding schools in rural areas, the training of additional teaching staff, and the elimination of repetition. By the 1961/62 academic year, the reorganization of 7-year schools into 8-year ones was completed. By 1970, implementation was largely completed compulsory eight years of education.

Development of pedagogical science

In the 1920s domestic pedagogical science has experienced a noticeable rise. There were many reasons for this. Scientists also worked - bearers of the best pedagogical traditions of the pre-revolutionary era. Connections with the rest of the pedagogical world were maintained. The leaders of the People's Commissariat for Education were positively disposed to innovations and attracted prominent and original-minded teachers to cooperate.

The scientific and pedagogical section of the State Academic Council (GUS), established in 1921, which included P.P., was called upon to facilitate the solution of pedagogical problems from a Marxist position. Blonsky, S.T. Shatsky, A.P. Pinkevich, A.G. Kalashnikov and other famous teachers. Scientists were engaged in theoretical and methodological substantiation of upbringing and education. They put forward as the fundamental principles of historicism and the connection between school and life, the connection of learning with productive work, the unity of teaching and upbringing, and the comprehensive and harmonious development of the individual.

These and other questions were at the center of pedagogical discussions in the 1920s. “Basic principles of the unified labor school” and “Regulations on the unified labor school”, other first documents of the Soviet government about the school, declared democratic approaches. The documents were permeated by the idea of a humane attitude towards the child’s personality. The child was declared the highest value. The tasks were set to promote the development of the child’s will, character, and internationalist feelings, to proceed from his interests and needs, from social instincts and drives. The school was supposed to channel these social instincts into the social mainstream, thereby educating a new person. The principle of individualization of education was proclaimed, taking into account the gender, age and living conditions of the child. It was proposed to create prerequisites for the development of children's talents. It was argued that only socialism can guarantee the development of the most valuable social quality - collectivism, provide conditions for nurturing solidarity, voluntary discipline, and readiness to work for the benefit of the working people of the whole world. At the same time, it was announced that bourgeois society creates individualism and conformism, while socialism is the soil for cultivating the natural abilities and all-round development of each person. Communist ideology was called the guarantor of achieving high pedagogical ideals. It was emphasized that the more education becomes class-based and communist, the more humane it is.

The first Soviet school documents, in accordance with the democratic ideals of pre-revolutionary Russian pedagogy, stated that a new school could only be created through the joint efforts of teachers, parents and authorities. Centralized management of education was rejected and the creation of school self-government was envisaged.

The “Declaration...” and “Regulations on a Unified School” evoked a positive response from many teachers. But there were many who saw in them a utopia and even falsehood and hypocrisy (S.I. Gessen, I.M. Grevs, V.V. Zenkovsky, I.A. Ilyin, N.I. Iordansky, N. O. Lossky and others).

So, V.V. Zenkovsky(1881 - 1962) pointed out the contradictions between lofty pedagogical declarations, official school policy and the essence of communist education. He argued that communist education cannot initially be humane, since it separates children by class. Communist education is far from humanism, since it is alien to pacifism, mutual assistance, sympathy for all living things, active idealism, love for the small homeland and the entire Russian fatherland. Love for humanity is replaced by service to class, national by international, spiritual by material. Children are instilled with hatred and cruelty.

Scientists who stood in opposition to official pedagogy did not accept the tasks of educating a new person - a fighter for communism, considering them utopian. They saw the main goal of education in turning the child to the world of kindness and humanity, to spiritual self-improvement.

Some opponents of the “Declaration...” and the “Regulations on a Unified School...” (for example, Zenkovsky), being committed to the ideas of religious education, rejected the monopoly of atheism, since it could lead to subjectivity and lies, limiting the possibilities of mental and moral education , to the child’s detachment from spirituality and truth.

Many of the critics believed that the ideas of labor education and training formulated in the “Declaration...” and “Regulations on a Unified School...” were unsuitable for achieving strategic pedagogical goals.

Set out in the “Declaration...” and the “Regulations on a Unified School...” the concept of a labor school provided that children would receive education from the natural world and society. The subject of study was to be complexes of encyclopedic knowledge, selected according to the age, interests and needs of children. Schoolchildren had to master production products, get acquainted with cultural elements (labor processes, tools, revolutionary holidays, etc.). The training program included information about the properties of material objects, social structures, and modern industry.

This approach had serious psychological, pedagogical and sociological justifications. It was based on the fact that the full development of personality occurs with the active development of the surrounding world, when the child’s motor skills, sensory skills, emotions, and feelings are intensively involved. The assertions that mental and physical labor have a beneficial effect on the development of ingenuity and creativity seemed scientifically justified. Confidence was expressed in the enormous pedagogical role of work, since it develops the most important centers of the brain, reveals abilities and talents, forms attention, accuracy, and resourcefulness. Labor was supposed to become the core of educational programs (for example, children were supposed to study soils not from a book, but by working in the school garden).

The concept of a labor school aroused serious objections among traditional educators. They did not accept the thesis about placing labor at the center of the educational process, believing that in this case mental education would fade into the background. For example, THEM. Graves did not object to physical labor taking an important place in the school, but believed that its role should be auxiliary, since the main task of the school is to provide knowledge, develop concepts and ideas.

So, I.M. Grevs and some other scientists regarded the concept of the labor school as narrowly utilitarian and pragmatic. In their opinion, the main goals of school education remain mental development, preparation for life, encouraging the desire to know the truth, and the formation of creative abilities. Concerns were expressed that students would be deprived of a thorough humanitarian education, which would lead to defective thinking, impoverishment of imagination and intuition.

The dialogue between official pedagogy and the opposition did not take place.

The ideas of many scientists of the 1920s and 1930s who occupied a non-Marxist position were not taken into account when developing theoretical foundations activities of the Soviet school. This, of course, caused great harm to the development of domestic education and pedagogy.

Throughout the 1920s. pedagogical discussions took place, during which important and topical issues were discussed: the relationship between philosophy and pedagogy, the class approach in education, the subject of pedagogy, basic pedagogical concepts, the individual and the team in the process of education, the future of the school as a special institution, the content of education, teaching methods, etc. The discussions revealed differences in views on the issues discussed. So, P.P. Blonsky and A.P. Pinkevich objected to the primacy of philosophy as a source of pedagogical science, while their opponents, for example, B.B. Komarovsky, insisted that pedagogy is primarily a philosophical science. L.S. Vygotsky proposed to avoid extremes when considering the issue of interaction in the development of the biological and social personality.

How wide the range of opinions was can be judged by the views of active participants in pedagogical discussions V.N. Shulgin and A.K. Gasteva.

In pedagogical creativity Viktor Nikolaevich Shulgin(1894-1965), as if in a mirror, reflected the romantic-radicalist sentiments of a significant part of the teachers of the 1920s. Author theories of the withering away of schools, he believed that pedagogy should study not only the organized influence on the individual, but also everything else. The rational grain of Shulgin’s theory lay in the affirmation of the need to study the relationship between element and organization in education, in the proposal to create a school open to society. In general, however, Shulgin assigned to pedagogy the utopian function of organizing the entire social environment for the purpose of education. He unjustifiably rejected the school as a center of social education, offering closed special institutions instead.

The opposite of abstract romantic-pedagogical doctrines were the ideas Alexey Kapitonovich Gastev(1882-1941). They were formulated in the early 1920s. and were vigorously discussed until the end of the 1930s. Gastev set out to develop industrial pedagogy. This pedagogy should have been aimed at professional training, at defining social and labor pedagogical technology that would oppose ideological education (“Cultural education will need to be made more operational, more vital, and not as ideological and stylized labor as it is given by modern schools”). Gastev saw the purpose of education primarily in the preparation of a “machine generation” capable of adapting to the latest technology, infected with the “demon of invention.”

In the early 1920s. Many scientists who were the cream of national pedagogical science were forced to leave Russia: V.V. Zenkovsky, S.I. Gessen, N.A. Berdyaev, I.A. Ilyin, S.L. Frank, I.O. Lossky et al.

A powerful source of development of Russian pedagogical thought arose in foreign countries. In the 1920s Almost every year, emigrant congresses were held dedicated to issues of upbringing and education. In the 1920-1930s. Various emigrant pedagogical magazines were published in Prague, Berlin, Riga, Harbin, and San Francisco. For some time, Russian scientific and pedagogical centers (departments, pedagogical societies, etc.) operated in foreign countries.

Russian emigrant pedagogical thought rejected the radicalism of official Soviet pedagogy and sought to rely on the experience of Russian and world science. In the theoretical pedagogy of the Russian Abroad, two directions were especially clearly manifested: philosophical-humanistic (continuing the traditions of Western and domestic classical pedagogy of the 19th century), and religious-Christian. Among the representatives of the first direction, S.I. stood out. Hesse. A bright exponent of the ideas of Russian religious pedagogy was V.V. Zenkovsky.

In the main work Sergei Iosifovich Gessen(1887-1950) “Fundamentals of Pedagogy” (1923) emphasized the leading role of philosophy as a source of pedagogical science (“pedagogy to a greater extent reflects the development of philosophical thought”). Hessen recognized education, first of all, as having a cultural function: “The task of any education is to familiarize a person with the cultural values of science, art, morality, law, economics, and to transform a natural person into a cultural one.” Following neo-Kantianism, he classified pedagogy as a normative science, that is, knowledge of what education and training should be.

Vasily Vasilievich Zenkovsky(1881-1962), becoming an ideologist of Orthodox pedagogy, was especially engaged in psychological research. He insisted that human consciousness is a unity of the rational and the irrational. Education must reconcile in the human soul the “truth of individualism” and the “truth of universalism.”

A tragic example of the denial of the achievements of domestic pedagogy by the official authorities - fate pedology. The first steps of this science in Soviet Russia were a continuation of previous studies. Pedology drew its arguments from various human sciences, primarily from psychology. In this regard, special mention should be made of the works L.S. Vygotsky(1896-1934).

In the 1920s pedologists have developed various methodological approaches. So, A.F. Lazursky proposed a typology of personalities, on the basis of which pedagogical principles of interaction between student and teacher were put forward on the principles of humanism, recognition of personality in the child.

I. A. Aryamov, A. A. Dernova-Ermolenko, Yu. F. Frolov and other scientists considered the child as a kind of machine that reflects on the external environment.

Biogenetic and sociogenetic concepts were formulated. Yes, biogeneticist P.P. Blonsky argued that a child in his ontogeny concisely repeats the main stages of the biological and social evolution of mankind, which should be taken into account in upbringing. Sociogeneticists A.B. Zalkind, S.S. Molozhavyi, A.S. Zaluzhny, on the contrary, they emphasized the role of external factors in raising a child.

The development of pedology was rudely interrupted. Resolution "On pedological perversions in the Narkompros system"(1936) marked the beginning of the defeat of pedologists. In essence, a blow was dealt to science, the banner of which was respect for the characteristics, interests and abilities of children.

The policy of eradicating dissent led to the fact that by the mid-1930s. pedagogical ideas of the 1920s. in general were declared harmful and projectorial. At the same time, the “iron curtain” fell, effectively cutting off domestic pedagogy from the rest of the pedagogical world.

The leading direction of research in official Stalinist pedagogy was the translation into the language of education and training of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine and the policies of the Communist Party. The main principles of Stalinist pedagogy were communist partyism and the cult of the leader. The Marxist-Leninist teaching was proclaimed to be the only correct methodology of pedagogy. Pluralism in pedagogical approaches and concepts was suppressed.

Of course, one cannot talk about the absolute paralysis of pedagogical science in the 1930s. It continued to develop despite the unfavorable conditions of the totalitarian regime. Domestic pedagogy of the 1920-1930s. never turned into a monolith. Along with the official ones, other ideas of education and training were developed. Vivid examples include the work of P.P. Blonsky, S.T. Shatsky, A.S. Makarenko, who played a major role in the development of pedagogical science.

Pavel Petrovich Blonsky(1884-1941) had a noticeable impact on the formation of domestic pedagogical science, especially in the first decade of Soviet power. His monograph “Labor School” (1919) was considered as the most important theoretical guideline for the creation of a new school in the 1920s.

P.P. Blonsky is the author of more than 200 pedagogical, psychological, pedological, and philosophical works. In the pre-revolutionary years, his works on preschool education, national education, history of pedagogy, psychology. In the 1920s The scientist did not limit himself to creating theoretical works and actively participated in the development of new school programs. He organized the Academy of Social Education (a higher pedagogical institution) and carried out experimental work at school. Since the mid-1920s. Blonsky's theoretical interests concentrated on the problems of pedology. After the resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) “On pedological perversions...” (1936), the political persecution of Blonsky began, and his name was consigned to oblivion for a long time.

P.P. Blonsky sought to transform pedagogy into a strictly normative science, far from ordinary reasoning and recipes. He believed that pedagogy as a science requires philosophical justification, reliance on the achievements of biology, genetics, physiology, sociology and other human sciences. She should study cause-and-effect relationships in education and training (for example, what punishments are there and why they exist). The most important tool of scientific pedagogy and a guarantee of reliable pedagogical knowledge is objective statistical information about the child and childhood, obtained using various tests. At the same time, Blonsky warned against the lack of representativeness of diagnostic methods.

Blonsky sought to put the eternal humanistic idea of transforming the child into the center of the pedagogical process into strictly scientific forms, allowing the transition from good-naturedness to truly humane education. Genuine love and respect for the individual consists of deep knowledge and consideration in the upbringing of the gender, age, personal and typical characteristics of the child. Thus, discussing the typology of students, Blonsky proposed conducting pedagogical work according to the scheme of strong and weak types of physical and mental development of the child. For example, a child of a weak type should not compete with a child of a strong type; he needs additional classes (“low-performing children need to be developed”).

According to Blonsky, successful education and training can be achieved if one knows the norms and values of the social environment, in particular, the norms and values of the school class. The school classroom is a complex system that performs integrative functions through public opinion, mood, and the dominant attitudes of leaders and group members.

According to labor school concept P.P. Blonsky assumed that students should acquire knowledge not through individual academic disciplines, but through the work life and relationships of people, as well as the surrounding natural world. Education should be structured in accordance with the different phases of child development (genetic method).

Blonsky paid special attention to the problem of developing children's intelligence in the educational process. He considered the question-answer system and exams archaic. Blonsky considered it advisable to exercise a child by solving various educational and moral problems (helping a friend, an adult, a parent).

Stanislav Teofilovich Shatsky(1878-1934) - a major figure in Russian pedagogy of the 20th century. A theorist and practitioner, he contributed to the development of the ideas of social education, the creation of experimental educational institutions: “Settlement” (together with A.U. Zelenko), “Cheerful Life”, and the First Experimental Station. In these institutions, the ideas of student self-government, education as the organization of children’s life activities, leadership in the community of schoolchildren, etc. were tested. S.T. Shatsky was deeply interested in the problem of a child’s entry into the sphere of cultural achievements of human civilization. The formation of his scientific views was influenced by the ideas of representatives of domestic and foreign pedagogy, especially L.N. Tolstoy, A.F. Fortunatova, D. Dewey.

S. T. Shatsky was one of the organizers of the strike of the All-Russian Teachers' Union in 1917-1918, which opposed the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. Subsequently, Shatsky, striving to serve for the benefit of children and society, cooperated with the People's Commissariat for Education.

Shatsky saw the source of the development of pedagogical science in the analysis of the organized educational process and circumstances lying outside such a process (the influence of the street, family, etc.). He believed that the main influence on the development of a child is not genetic inclinations, but the socio-economic environment (“we should not consider the child in itself..., but should look at him as the bearer of those influences that are found in him as going from environment"). This approach sharply contrasted with the biologism of pedology. At the same time, Shatsky agreed that attempts to do without experimental and experimental research in pedagogy are doomed to failure. He expressed doubts about the legitimacy of creating pedology as a new branch of knowledge using mathematized methods. At the same time, Shatsky rejected a primitive sociologizing approach to a child, considering it madness to “break” a child’s nature and “forge” a new person in the name of a beautiful tomorrow.

Shatsky formulated important goals of training and education: compliance with social orders and simultaneous consideration of individual characteristics of the individual; developing in children the ability to unite efforts in achieving a common goal (for example, through self-government); training a teacher with the skills to teach, encourage a socially beneficial impact on the child, and master the methods of studying children; taking into account the child’s macro- and microsocial environment.

Reserving for the school the main role in educational work with children, Shatsky emphasized that an educational institution should be closely connected with life, be the center and coordinator of the educational influence of the environment. Shatsky called creativity and independence the main factors in a child’s activity in the process of upbringing and learning. The main goal of education is not the acquisition of knowledge, but the development of thinking, the education of the mind. Considering the question of the place of productive labor in education, Shatsky emphasized that one cannot strive to make such labor a way of replenishing the costs of education.

Outstanding domestic teacher Anton Semenovich Makarenko(1888-1939) creatively rethought the classical pedagogical heritage, took an active part in the pedagogical searches of the 1920-1930s, identifying and developing a number of new problems of education. The range of Makarenko’s scientific interests extended to issues of pedagogical methodology, the theory of education, and the organization of education. He managed to present his views related to the methodology of the educational process in the most detail.

In pedagogical science A.S. Makarenko came as a brilliant practitioner: in 1917-1919. he was in charge of a school in Kryukov; in 1920 he took over the leadership of a children's colony near Poltava (later the Gorky colony); in 1928-1935 worked in the Dzerzhinsky children's commune in Kharkov. From the second half of the 1930s. Makarenko was actually removed from teaching practice and in last years Throughout his life he was engaged in scientific and literary work. From his pen came pedagogical works that have already become classics: “Pedagogical Poem”, “Flags on the Towers”, “Book for Parents”, etc.

A.S. Makarenko developed a harmonious pedagogical system, the methodological basis of which is pedagogical logic, interpreting pedagogy as “first of all, a practically expedient science.” This approach means the need to identify a natural correspondence between the goals, means and results of education. The key point of Makarenko’s theory is the thesis parallel action, that is, the organic unity of education and life of society, the collective and the individual. With parallel action, the “freedom and well-being of the student” is ensured, who acts as a creator, and not an object of pedagogical influence.

The quintessence of the educational system methodology, according to Makarenko, is the idea educational team. The essence of this idea lies in the need to form a single workforce of teachers and students, whose life activities serve as a breeding ground for the development of personality and individuality.

Makarenko’s creativity came into conflict with the inhumane Stalinist pedagogy, which inculcated the idea of educating a human cog in a gigantic social machine. Makarenko professed the idea of educating an independent and active member of society.

Official pedagogy existed in an odious, totalitarian, ideologized form until the second half of the 1950s. She did not recognize, for example, tests as a supposedly bourgeois method of pedagogical research; Attempts to introduce new essential concepts into pedagogy were suppressed (in particular, “development”, “universal human values”). Pedagogical science was under strict control of the state and the Communist Party. The Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR, created in 1943 (since 1967, the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR), operated under the same control. This body was declared the main center for the development of public education, the popularization of pedagogical knowledge, the development of issues of general and special pedagogy, the history of pedagogy, school hygiene, psychology, methods of teaching basic disciplines in secondary schools and pedagogical educational institutions, and the training of scientific teaching staff.

In the 1960-1980s. Party ideological pressure on pedagogical science gradually weakened, but nevertheless continued to influence scientific and pedagogical ideas. Domestic scientists P.R. Atutov, Yu.K. Babansky, V.P. Bespalko, V.E. Gmurman, P.N. Gruzdev, M.A. Danilov, N.K. Goncharov, L.V. Zankov, B.P. Esipov, F.F. Korolev, V.V. Kraevsky, I.Ya. Lerner, E.I. Monoszon, I.T. Ogorodnikov, P.I.Stavsky, V.V. Sukhomlinsky, M.N. Skatkin, T.I. Shamova, B.S. Shubinsky, G.I. Shchukina, D.E. Epstein and others) developed problems of methodology (education as a social phenomenon; purpose, social functions of education; biological and social in education), the content of general education, learning theory, polytechnic education and labor education, comprehensive development of the individual, etc. Important and fruitful ideas: system-structural approach to pedagogical phenomena; interaction of pedagogy with other sciences; unity of education and training; the unity of biological and social factors of development with the leading importance of the social factor and the social functions of the school; the relationship between the team and the individual in education; integrity and purposefulness of the education process; turning learning into a decisive condition for the development of schoolchildren; the relationship between the theory of knowledge and the theory of learning; interdependence of learning principles; optimization of training; differentiation of training and career guidance; place of the lesson in the educational process; cognitive independence of the student, etc.

Noticeable increase in volume scientific knowledge occurred in the least ideological branch of pedagogy - didactics. A holistic approach to the study of the educational process has gained recognition. On a larger scale, the results of psychological research have been used in thinking about issues of learning and education. The actual pedagogical interpretation of the main didactic categories has deepened.

Russian scientists have developed original concepts of education. One of them is the concept of general secondary education (V.V. Kraevsky, I.Ya. Lerner, M.N. Skatkin).

According to this concept, the global goal of education is for the younger generation to master the basics of social experience. The concept of social experience includes the following: 1) knowledge about nature, society, technology, people, methods of activity; 2) experience in implementing known methods of activity (development of skills and abilities); 3) experience of creative activity; 4) experience of an emotional and value-based attitude to the world and activity.

The main thing in the content of education is the social order, which must be translated into the language of pedagogy. To do this, first a general theoretical idea of the content of education is built, then an idea of the level of the educational subject, and, finally, an idea of the level of educational material. Thus, the content of education really exists only in the learning process. This process requires conscious perception of information and its memorization. It is proposed to implement the interrelated activities of the teacher and students using teaching methods. The unified educational process has its own logic: students must certainly go through two levels of assimilation of knowledge and skills - conscious perception and memorization, application. In the real educational process, these levels alternate variably.

Fruitful ideas were also put forward regarding education. So, V.E. Gmurman proposed to talk about predisposition, and not about the predetermination of the individual as a subject of education. In his opinion, a person by nature has certain types of reflection that facilitate or complicate education as a process of socialization. V.E. Gmurman insisted that social education was of paramount importance. He viewed education as a process directed from the collective to the individual.

As the scientist believed, it has not yet been possible to translate essential sociologizing ideas into “pedagogical language”. Nevertheless, he derived a number of principles of education: 1) education through other types of activities (denial of “pure” education); 2) self-change and self-education in the process of activity; 3) uneven development of personality in the absence of specially organized educational efforts.

Questions and tasks

1. What are the main contradictions in the development of the national school and pedagogy of the Soviet period?

2. Describe the development of the Soviet school in the 1920s and 1930s. What were the differences in the school's activities during these two stages?

3. Tell us about the problems and priorities of school policy in the USSR in the 1940-1980s.

4. On what basis can we talk about the crisis of the Soviet school at the turn of the 1980-1990s?

5. Tell us about the confrontation between Soviet official pedagogy and the views of a number of domestic scientists. What do you know about Russian pedagogical abroad?

6. Is it possible to talk about the 1920s as a period of the rise of domestic pedagogy? What do you know about pedagogical discussions and the development of pedology during this period?

8. Analyze the main pedagogical ideas of P.P. Blonsky, S.T. Shatsky, A.S. Makarenko.

9. Name the main directions of scientific pedagogical research in the USSR in the 50-80s. Give examples of the results of such studies.

Literature

Blonsky P.P. Favorite ped. and psychological Op.: In 2 volumes - M., 1979.

Vendrovskaya R.B. Essays on the history of Soviet didactics. - M., 1982.

Issues of activity of experimental educational institutions in the USSR, Western Europe and the USA.: Sat. scientific works - M., 1980.

Gessen S.I. Fundamentals of pedagogy. Introduction to Applied Philosophy. - M., 1995.

Zenkovsky V.V. Problems of education in the light of Christian anthropology. - M., 1993.

History of pedagogy. - M., 1998. - Part II. - Ch. 8.

Korolev F.F., Korneychik T.D., Ravkin Z.I. Essays on the history of Soviet Skoda and pedagogy. 1921-1931. - M., 1961.

Krupskaya N.K. Pedagogical work: In 11 volumes - M., 1957-1963.

Lenin V.I. On upbringing and education // Collection. op. - M., 1978. - T. 12.

Lossky N.O. Favorites. - M., 1991.

Lunacharsky A.V. About upbringing and education. - M., 1976.

Makarenko A.S. Ped. Op.: In 8 volumes - M., 1983-1985.

Public education in the USSR. Secondary school: Collection of documents. 1917-1973. - M., 1974.

Essays on the history of pedagogical science in the USSR (1917-1980). - M., 1986.

Essays on the history of school and pedagogical thought of the peoples of the USSR. 1917-1941. - M., 1980.

Essays on the history of school and pedagogical thought of the peoples of the USSR. 1941-1961.- M., 1988.

Pedagogical heritage of Russian diaspora. 20s. - M., 1993.

Development of experimental educational institutions in the USSR and abroad: Sat. scientific works - M., 1977.

Formation and development of the Soviet school and pedagogy (1917-1937): Sat. scientific works – M., 1978.

Fradkin F.A., Plokhova M.G., Osovsky E.G. Lectures on the history of national pedagogy. - M., 1995.

Fradkin F.A. Pedology: myths and reality. - M., 1991.

Frolov A. A. A.S. Makarenko: fundamentals of the pedagogical system. – Gorky, 1990.

Reader. Pedagogy of Russian abroad. - M., 1996.

Shatsky S.T. Ped. Op.: In 4 vols. - M., 1962-1964.

School and pedagogy in Russia after the Great Patriotic War. Development of secondary schools in the late 40s - 50s. Organization of industrial training, labor education and vocational guidance of students in secondary schools in the late 50s - 60s. The transition to universal secondary education in the second half of the 60s - early 70s.

Development of pedagogical science. Expanding the scope of activity of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences. Increased attention since the early 60s to the development of theoretical problems of school education and training. Study of the relationship between learning and development, the essence of learning processes, ways to improve the structure of the lesson, intensification of teaching methods, the relationship between reproductive and creative cognitive activity. The problem of programmed learning. Theory and practice of problem-based learning. Problems of polytechnic and vocational education. Continuation of active work in the field of correctional pedagogy (I.A. Sokolyansky, A.I. Meshcheryakov, A.I. Dyachkov, etc.).

A.P. Pinkevich - the most prominent teacher of the first half of the 30s. One of the first Soviet theorists. Graduated from Kazan University, a capable biologist. After university he teaches and is engaged in literary activities (Gorky's assistant). In the first half of the 20s. first heads the Ural University, then the Petrograd Pedagogical Institute, and since 1924 the rector of the 2nd Moscow State University. Since 1926, he has been simultaneously the director of the Institute of Scientific Pedagogy, and since 1930 he has been the head of the department of pedagogy at Moscow State Pedagogical Institute. In 1924-1925 he published Pedagogy in 2 parts, one of the first Soviet textbooks. His works were criticized by P. P. Blonsky; V.N. Shulgin, according to M.V. Boguslavsky, waged a “war of annihilation” against Pinkevich, accusing him of anti-Marxism. Later he was arrested along with other scientists and teachers on charges of creating a terrorist group. Shot. . P. Blonsky is an outstanding teacher and psychologist, “Soviet Pestalozzi.” He had the greatest influence on post-revolutionary Russian pedagogy; his legacy has not yet been fully studied. He made demands on pedagogy as an exact science, which must establish patterns between the facts of education, studying them depending on various reasons (“Education is not created by the will of an individual... but is a function of certain economic and political conditions...)” One of the main developers of pedology, understood it as a science that “studies human development in childhood,” while pedagogy “studies the factors favorable to this development.” He attached enormous influence to objective methods of pedagogical research, primarily statistical testing, although he always noted that diagnostics should not be made into a cult. He carefully worked out the research procedure. The center of the pedagogical process, according to Blonsky, is the child; everything should be aimed at “opening and enriching” the child (“Love not the school, but the children who come to school”). Love is manifested in knowledge of the student’s characteristics (gender, age, etc.) and in the ability to build work based on this knowledge. Successful work is determined by empathy (in modern terms, empathy). Blonsky was one of the first to draw attention to the role of informal relationships in the formation of personality (norms and values of the social environment, leadership, management). Developed a typology of students based on “strong - weak”. This manifests itself in physical, mental, psychological development. The weak type (mental development) deserves special attention; a child of this type becomes a winner only in fiction (dreams). “Dreams” slow down development; Blonsky developed ways to work with such children. Thus, according to Blonsky, the goals of education depend on the type of child. In the concept of labor school created by Blonsky, students must study the world holistically, as life-work, relationships between people, phenomena and objects. To intensify the educational process, Blonsky proposed a genetic method, which involved learning according to the phases of a child’s development, organized in stages - this is the only way to develop what is inherent in nature. The “borders of experience” should be gradually expanded (from micro to macro). By activating thinking, the teacher makes the student’s work creative, therefore (like Shatsky) Blonsky condemned learning, when the teacher asks what has been learned, the student answers. To bring learning closer to “life itself,” Blonsky proposed to study tools in practice and practice solving social situations (he included them in the real educational process). After the decree of 1936 “On pedological perversions in the Nar-kompros system.” Blonsky is being hounded, his publications are stopped, and he is forbidden to speak. Both of his sons are arrested. Forgotten and alone, he died in a local hospital. For 20 years his name and works were banned. 44

The development of pedagogical thought in conditions of emigration was fueled, on the one hand, by the ineradicable need of Russian scientists to understand the philosophical, psychological, cultural, religious problems of the formation and development of personality, education and culture; on the other hand, the presence of children and youth emigration in need of social and pedagogical protection and education. The Russian intelligentsia was united by concern and concern for the fate of the younger generation in Russia. This became, using the words of I.A. Bunin, "the mission of Russian emigration."

We can talk about the established scientific and pedagogical space of the Russian Abroad, which created a unified field of intellectual attraction and allowed the development of the theory and practice of school affairs.

First of all, the basis of this space was the social pedagogical movement of the Russian emigration, which involved the intelligentsia in the creative process. It was organized by two centers of pedagogical emigration: the Pedagogical Bureau for the Affairs of Secondary and Lower Russian Schools Abroad, which was headed by V.V. Zenkovsky, and the Association of Russian Teachers' Organizations Abroad (URUOZ), of which A.V. was elected chairman. Zhekulina. They not only performed organizational and pedagogical functions, but also contributed to the revitalization of scientific life in the field of education, enjoying great authority in the circles of pedagogical emigration.

The concentrate and activator of pedagogical thought in emigration were all-emigrant pedagogical congresses, both of a general focus in 1923, 1925 and 1926, and on the problems of preschool education (1927), out-of-school education (1928), education of school youth (1929), a number of meetings on religious - moral education and upbringing, which gathered the best pedagogical forces to discuss pressing problems. Congresses and meetings were held in individual countries or groups of countries. Through Russian academic groups that held their congresses, venerable scientists were involved in understanding the problems of youth education.

ZENKOVSKY Vasily Vasilievich

Zenkovsky's philosophical system itself consists of three sections: epistemology, metaphysics and the doctrine of man (anthropology). In the field of epistemology, Zenkovsky stands on the point of view, which he calls the “Christocentric understanding of knowledge.” Building his concepts, Zenkovsky follows the path of criticizing opposing and close views, exposing the first and clarifying the second, then gives his own understanding of the problem, after which he once again justifies the positive solution to the problem obtained in this way with the help of Christian doctrine. Thus, in epistemology, having overcome the one-sidedness of the teachings of S. N. Trubetskoy about the “conciliar nature of human knowledge” and German transcendental idealism, Zenkovsky comes to the concept of “church reason”, according to which the metaphysical support of knowledge must be sought in the concept of the Church. “This interpretation of knowledge decisively rejects the principle of the “autonomy” of reason, which requires a revision of all principles modern science”(History of Russian philosophy, vol. 2, part 2. L., 1991. p. 252). In metaphysics, Zenkovsky, abandoning the constructions of Vl. S. Solovyov, comes to the “rejection” of all forms of Neoplatonism. His ontology is, first of all, the doctrine of the creatureliness of being, an original version of sophiology (although in a number of points Zenkovsky follows S.N. Bulgakov); he also developed his own version of cosmism and the doctrine of the world Soul. In his doctrine of man, Zenkovsky gives a general formulation of those psychological and pedagogical ideas that he developed throughout his life. “The path of man,” he believes, “on earth stands under the sign of the “cross” (every person, according to the teachings of the Lord, has “his own” cross, which ensures the incomparability and originality of each person), i.e., the internal law by which he can the lost (although fundamentally not destroyed) integrity in a person can be restored. This explains the centrality of his moral life; liberation from the power of “spiritual” movements, spiritualization of the entire composition of man is at the same time our preparation for the triumph of eternal life in man. All pedagogical efforts that are generally feasible should be aimed at ensuring that a young being can “find himself” and creatively transform his composition, which he finds in himself, as an interaction of heredity, social and spiritual influences” (ibid., p. 253 ). Zenkovsky’s theological views are set out in the book “Apologetics” (Paris, 1957), in which he aims “at all those points where there is a real or imaginary divergence of knowledge and culture from the Church, to show that the truth of Christianity remains unshakable” (“Apologetics” Riga, 1992.p.11). A special place in Zenkovsky’s creative heritage is occupied by “The History of Russian Philosophy” - a fundamental two-volume study published in Paris in 1948-50 and in 1953 translated into French and English languages. In terms of coverage of material and depth of interpretation, this study remains unsurpassed.

Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin

Russian philosopher, jurist, political thinker, as well as a subtle theorist and historian of religion and culture.

From 1923 to 1934, the Russian philosopher was dean and professor of the Russian Scientific Institute in Berlin. During these years, he actively participated in the political life of the Russian emigration, joining its right. He became one of the ideologists of the white movement, and for several years published the "Russian Bell. Journal of a strong-willed idea." During this period of time, he wrote a number of books on issues of philosophy, politics, religion and culture: “The Religious Meaning of Philosophy”, “On Resistance to Evil by Force” (1925), “The Path of Spiritual Renewal” (1935), “Fundamentals of Art. About the Perfect in art (1937), etc. However, Ilyin’s more active work was interrupted due to the Nazis coming to power in Germany, because already in 1934 he was fired from the Russian Scientific Institute, and two years later he was prohibited from any public activity. And in 1938 he was forced to emigrate from Germany to Switzerland. Largely thanks to S.V. Rachmaninov and many of his other friends, he settled with his wife near Zurich. Fearing the reaction of Germany, the Swiss authorities limited the activities of the Russian philosopher. But gradually his position strengthened and he was already able to actively engage in creative activity.In addition to a large number of articles and essays published in various publications, in particular, which later formed the collection “Our Tasks” (published in 2 volumes in 1956), Ivan Aleksandrovich also published three books in German philosophical and artistic prose, united by the common concept of “The Singing Heart. The Book of Quiet Contemplations", as well as a fundamental study of the "Axioms of Religious Experience" (published in 2 volumes in 1953) and the book "The Path to Evidence" (1957) was being prepared for publication. All this suggests that Ilyin's range of interests was very broad: he was interested in both religious and legal, socio-political, philosophical, as well as ethical, aesthetic, anthropological, literary and poetic problems and areas of knowledge.

The Russian thinker made an outstanding contribution to the formation and development of national ideology. Thus, in his report “The Creative Idea of Our Future,” made in Belgrade and Prague in 1934, he formulates the emerging problems of Russian national life, which are still relevant today. “We must tell the rest of the world,” he boldly declared, “that Russia is alive, that burying it is short-sighted and stupid; that we are not human dust and dirt, but living people with a Russian heart, with a Russian mind and Russian talent, which is in vain They think that we have “quarreled” with each other and are in irreconcilable differences of opinion, as if we are narrow-minded reactionaries who are only thinking about their personal scores with the commoner or the “foreigner”.

The public education system in the USSR is an education system that began to take shape in Soviet times (Soviet Russia, USSR).

Education in the Soviet Union was closely connected with the upbringing and formation of personality traits. The Soviet school was designed not only to solve general educational problems, teaching students knowledge of the laws of development of nature, society and thinking, labor skills and abilities, but also to form on this basis the communist views and beliefs of students, to educate students in the spirit of high morality, Soviet patriotism and socialist internationalism.

The basic principles of education in the Soviet Union were formulated back in 1903 in the RSDLP Program, announced at the Second Congress of the RSDLP: universal free compulsory education for children of both sexes up to 16 years of age; elimination of class schools and restrictions in education based on nationality; separation of school and church; training in native language, etc.

Since the creation of the Soviet state, education issues have been given priority attention. On November 9, 1917 (the day after the 2nd All-Russian Congress of Soviets on October 26 (November 8), 1917), a joint Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars established the State Education Commission, which was entrusted with the task of managing the entire system of public education and culture.

In October 1918, the regulation “On the Unified Labor School of the RSFSR” was introduced, which introduced free and cooperative education for school-age children. On December 26, 1919, a decree was signed stating that the entire population of the country between the ages of 8 and 50, who could not read or write, was obliged to learn to read and write in their native language or Russian, if desired. ]

A serious problem was the illiteracy of a significant part of the population, especially the peasantry, while in Europe this problem was solved back in the 19th century. The Soviet leadership considered achieving universal literacy one of its priorities. As Vladimir Lenin said - “We need a huge increase in culture. it is necessary to ensure that the ability to read and write serves to improve culture, so that the peasant has the opportunity to use this ability to read and write to improve his economy and his state.”.

In total, by 1920, 3 million people were taught to read and write. The 1920 census on the territory of Soviet Russia recorded the ability to read in 41.7% of the population aged 8 years and older. However, this census was not universal and did not cover such territories of the country as Belarus, Volyn, Podolsk provinces, Crimea, Transcaucasia, mountainous regions of the North Caucasus, part of Turkestan and Kyrgyzstan, the Far East, as well as some areas of European Russia and Ukraine, Khiva and Bukhara .

Based on the decrees of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR, adopted in 1918-19, the education system was radically changed: the existence of private schools was prohibited; free education and coeducational education for children of both sexes were introduced; the school was separated from the church, and the church from the state; the teaching of any religious doctrine and the performance of religious rites in educational institutions was prohibited; physical punishment of children was abolished; all nationalities received the right to study in their native language; the beginning has been made of the creation of a system of public preschool education; New rules for admission to universities were developed and put into effect.

Modern researchers note: “The communist attack on the system of distribution of scientific statuses began in 1918. The point was not so much the “re-education of the bourgeois professors,” but rather the establishment of equal access to education and the destruction of class privileges, which included the privilege of being educated.”

New industrial technologies, new industries, new professions, etc. influenced the development of educational content. All countries showed a desire to improve the education system, although this happened in different ways. Western countries as a whole were characterized, first of all, by the desire to create unified education systems and increase the general intellectual level of education. At the same time, the new states of the socialist camp were restructuring all forms of socio-political life in accordance with the socialist political-ideological system in the field of education imposed on them after the war, this meant the creation of school systems close to those that developed in the Soviet Union.

Strengthening government influence on schools is typical for all Western European countries. In Great Britain, even before the end of the Second World War, the Butler Act was adopted. This law democratized and streamlined school life, expanding the rights of trustees and parent committees, and increased the period of compulsory education for children to 15 years. At the same time, three types of secondary educational institutions were legalized: modern school, grammar school and secondary technical school. It should be noted that graduates of the modern school, who made up two-thirds of all graduates, were deprived of the right to enter higher educational institutions. The autonomy of counties in decision-making regarding the education system complicated school management and interfered with the establishment of a uniform content of education, which affected the level of general educational preparation of students as a whole.

In the 60s so-called unified comprehensive schools were established, the graduates of which received the right to enter higher educational institutions. Currently, this is the most widespread type of secondary educational institution in the UK.

The 1988 education reform introduced the Single National Curriculum for all types of schools, which formed the basis for the unification of the education system in Great Britain.

The development of the American school in the post-war period took place in line with the process of centralization of educational management. By the end of the war, only slightly more than 10% of schools remained private. But the problem was that, according to the previously established tradition, each state had the right to independently and independently draw up a curriculum and formulate its own school policies. This situation remained until the passage of the National Defense Education Act in 1958, which, together with a number of subsequent federal acts, significantly coordinated educational activities in the United States.

In the mid-60s. In the United States, a large-scale movement began to eliminate the remnants of racial and religious segregation in schools. Discrimination against certain groups of people was recognized as a relic of the slave-owning past, a phenomenon unworthy of modern civilization. This process occurred gradually over almost ten years. The ideas of humanization and democratization of education became very relevant during this period.

In the second half of the 70s. There was a noticeable decline in the level of general education provided by public schools. It was also noted that a third of the country's adult population does not have secondary education. This was explained by the lack of demand for workers with this level of education at this stage of economic development. Following the logic of solving long-term strategic problems, contrary to the temporary requirements of the economy, in 1981 the law on the unification and improvement of education programs came into force in the United States, which marked the beginning of the standardization of the content of school education. Natural sciences and mathematics were recognized as priority areas. The immediate future task of the American school began to be considered the teaching of computer literacy starting from the elementary grades of school.