© RIA Novosti / Vitaly Timkiv
At the recent enlarged meeting of the State Council, devoted to matters in education, of course, there were many pedagogical needs and aspirations.
About school buildings, school buffets, extended hours, circles and sections. They also shouted in unison about the oppressive control of the bureaucracy over teachers, who are obliged to write countless plans, trajectories, foresights, and so on. Do not feel sorry for the teachers – at least they would feel sorry for the Russian forest, because how much paper is transferred to waste paper.
But these are common needs, they will always be talked about. The peculiarity of this State Council was that both the governors, and the teachers themselves, and the chairman, V.V. Putin, talked a lot about such an immaterial thing as correcting names. They asked to permanently remove the term “educational services” from everyday life.
“In the pedagogical environment, this formulation offends, sometimes irritates and even outrages,” said a teacher from Chechnya. The Vyatka governor echoed him: “The work of a teacher cannot simply be attributed to the service sector.” With which the President of Russia also agreed: “Many are offended by the word and term“ service. ”But if this somehow hurts people in relation to teacher’s work and they believe that this impoverishes the meaning of this work and its high social significance, let’s think about how to work out the issue of adjusting the legislation so that this word is in no way connected with the high rank of the teacher and would be used only in budgetary and financial documents. “
Thus, the pedagogical and pedagogical community can say, referring to the former Minister of Public Education: “You won, O. Yu. Vasilyeva!” For Vasilyeva, who was a pretty bogeyman in the eyes of the progressive public (cavalier AA Venediktov even left the public council under the ministry in protest against her appointment), tried to prohibit officials from using the term “services.”
Here, as is always the case when correcting names, it is a worldview question.
The liberal approach (including to education) is described by the classics of Marxism: “The bourgeoisie, wherever it achieved domination, destroyed all patriarchal, idyllic relations. sacred halo all the activities that until then were considered honorable and looked at with awe. She turned a doctor, a lawyer, a priest, a poet, a man of science into her paid hired workers. ” Professors and teachers too.
And the ideologues of the educational reform innocently reasoned: “Everything according to Marx, a teacher as a simple hired worker with services – this is good, we must strive for this.” And they rushed.
The teachers, on the other hand, were unhappy – and very unhappy – because this meant a very strong demotion of their status. In a more or less traditional society, there were informal pillars (or if not pillars, but columns). For the French, it was a notary, a curé and a teacher who determined what was good for communal life and what was bad. And they listened to their opinion. That is, not only money determined the rules of behavior.
If the oligarch (mini-oligarch) and the local official decide everything, and the teacher is only a service provider (along with a hairdresser, waiter, plumber) who is ordered to serve and not tweet, this may correspond to reformist patterns, but the authority of the teacher does not match in any way.
Which also has a practical consequence. If there is no authority, there is no power either. Meanwhile, a teacher without power over his students is a reed shaken by the wind. It is possible to recognize such a state of affairs when a waiter in a restaurant, being a supplier of food and drink services, is a powerless creature. Even if the clients do not smear his face with mustard (and smear it – it’s not a big deal). But if a teacher is deprived of rights before students and their parents (he is a service provider and nothing more), then this does not correspond very much to discipline, and therefore to cramming and study. Something comes out, rather, on the line of the “Republic of SHKID”. Or paintings by V. G. Perov “The Arrival of the Governess at the Merchant House”. There is not much authority here.
That is, the progressive-libertarian view of the figure of the teacher not only did not like the teachers themselves, but did not contribute to the hammering of knowledge into the students’ heads.
At the beginning of the 30s of the 20th century, the realization came that advanced experimentation is, perhaps, very interesting, but when a school graduate must be a minimally literate cadre, then one cannot do without authority, discipline and cramming. After that, the pedologists were given a hand, and the teacher, of course, became not the dominant, but not the last figure in Soviet society. The war was approaching, and there was no time for agility.
If the teacher’s cry was heard now, it is possible that the top officials came to the understanding that without correcting the names and without refusing pedological services, something will always come out wrong. Maybe this is due to personnel changes in the former conceptual smithy and health resort, that is, at the Higher School of Economics, maybe not, but something is felt in the air.
Subscribe to us