Meeting with Lyudmila Apollonovna Yasyukova, Head of the Laboratory of Social Psychology, St. Petersburg State University
download vitio
Since the collapse of the USSR, the education system has remained virtually unchanged. The advantages include the well-functioning of the mechanisms of this system. Despite any social changes and a chronic lack of funding, the system continued and continues to work. But, unfortunately, in many issues of the effectiveness of the education system, we have not advanced for hundreds of years, but rather stepped back. The current system of education practically does not take into account the processes of group dynamics and is inferior even to the Jesuit system in this. Moreover, this is typical not only for the post-Soviet education system. Successful study at school does not at all guarantee success in life and professional activity; rather, there is even an inverse correlation. We should openly admit the fact that more than 50% of the knowledge provided by the modern school turns out to be absolutely useless.
Yes, it’s good to know by heart all the IV volumes of “War and Peace” (I say know by heart, because not only have I not seen a child capable of understanding this work, but I can’t even imagine such a thing); as well as to know how to behave during an atomic explosion and be able to put on a gas mask with a chemical protection kit; know the principle of electromagnetic induction; be able to solve integral equations and calculate the area of the lateral surface of a cone; know the structure of the paraffin molecule; date of Spartacus’ uprising; etc. etc. But, firstly, at least two-thirds of the average citizens (all studied at school), apart from putting on a gas mask (purely intuitively), they don’t know any of the above, and secondly, it’s impossible to know everything anyway, especially since the amount of knowledge in each field is continuously increasing exponentially. And, as you know, wise is not the one who knows everything, but the one who knows the right thing.
The school should graduate people, first of all, who are mentally and physically healthy, able to learn, socially adapted and competitive in the labor market (possessing the knowledge that is really needed to achieve professional success). And not those who taught «War and Peace», higher mathematics, the theory of relativity, DNA synthesis, and, having studied for about 10 years (!), as they did not know anything, they still do not know, as a result of which, after graduation, they can get a job except perhaps at a construction site as a handyman (and who else?). Or after studying for another 4-5 years, go to work with someone else, and earn (appreciated in the labor market) even less than a handyman at a construction site.
The motivation for a good work of a teacher is negative. The current system of education does not in any way stimulate the good work of a teacher, and does not differentiate pay depending on the quality of work. But good, high-quality work requires much more time and effort on the part of the teacher. By the way, the assessment of the student is essentially an assessment of the work of the teacher, at present there is no understanding of this among educators. At the same time, the worse the teacher works, the worse the grades of the students, the more often the parents of these students pay visits, and, as a rule, not “empty-handed”: they agree on the best grades or pay him, the teacher, for tutoring or overtime . The system is so constructed and functions in such a way that it is directly beneficial to work badly. Passing through such a system of public secondary education, even initially healthy, not at all stupid and creative children, instead of preparation, receive a strong immunity to the academic path of acquiring knowledge. Interesting and absolutely easy to understand school subjects, in recent years, have been turned into «fiends of the human mind.»
And it’s not about funding, but about the education system itself. Obviously, for the modern economy and production, education is the most cost-effective, and, literally, vital product. Therefore, of course, public funding for education should be increased. However, such an increase in funding for education, under the current system, can only lead to a very slight increase in its productivity. Due to, I repeat, the complete lack of motivation of education personnel to work effectively. Against this background, the only prospect is labor-intensive, environmentally dirty production and export of natural raw materials.
The content of education does not meet the modern needs of a person, and hence the state. Motivation for the study of a child, if after 10 years of study a handyman comes out for a construction site, and after another 5 years, one who is the same as a handyman or is less valuable to the labor market.
So, the recipe is the same as for the entire Stalinist system. It is simple, obvious, and has long been used in all areas of activity, protected by law, and encouraged in every possible way. This single and best way consists in the postulate: “Working well should be profitable, but not doing well”, and is called the principle of competition. Rapid development, and the development of education in general, as well as of any other sphere of activity, is possible only when it is stimulated — the best flourishes, and, accordingly, ignored — the worst is deprived of resources. The main question is how quickly, without losses, and without destroying the existing system of secondary education, to organize competition for resources in this system? The main purpose of this work, in fact, is to substantiate the resolution of this issue. Therefore, I would venture to suggest that it is not so difficult. The state spends a certain amount of money on the education of one student (the amount of budget funds that are spent on textbooks, school maintenance, teacher fees, etc., divided by the total number of students). It is necessary that this amount be transferred to the educational institution that the particular student chooses to receive education in the next academic year. Regardless of the form of ownership of this educational institution, the presence or absence of an additional tuition fee in it. At the same time, public schools should not charge additional funds from parents, which is now widely practiced by them, since they were created precisely in order to ensure free education. At the same time, territorial communities should have the right to create new schools of their own, to which the provision on complete free education (directly for parents) may, at the request of the territorial community, not apply (provided that access to education is systematically provided for children of all property strata of the population). Thus, state educational institutions become in direct competition with each other and with private “elite schools”, thanks to which they receive an incentive to work (which is now completely absent) and the prospect of ceasing to be cesspools and, finally, becoming educational institutions. Conditions are being created for the construction of new schools by territorial communities (communal form of ownership). And the state has the opportunity to influence the prices of «elite schools» by introducing a maximum limit for tuition fees, at which the state subsidizes education in these educational institutions, and (or) the possibility of eliminating the class system of «elite schools» by introducing into them (with their consent) ) a certain number of places for the education of children of poor citizens. «Elite schools» get the opportunity and incentive to make their services more accessible. In turn, more citizens will receive a truly high-quality education. Thus, it is possible in principle to ensure and increase the efficiency of the use of budgetary funds.
To achieve at least a minimally acceptable level of modern production potential, the domestic curriculum urgently requires immediate reforms, both in the financing system and in the form and content of education, in the end, the only goal of the first is to provide the second and third. At the same time, this change will not be beneficial for many officials, as it deprives them of the function of distributing resources, which is carried out according to a simple principle — «money follows the child.»
A vivid illustration of the current education system is the phrase expressed by one school principal, Viktor Gromov: «the humiliation of knowledge itself as a guarantee of success and carriers of knowledge, teachers and scientists.»
It is necessary to train, first of all, the skills and abilities of working with information, for example:
— Speed reading, the principles of semantic processing and quick memorization of text and other types of information by 100% (this is possible, but this needs to be taught); note-taking skills.
— The ability to control yourself and manage your time.
— The ability to use a computer to facilitate actual activities (and not useless knowledge about it).
— Creative thinking and logic.
— Knowledge about the human psyche (attention, will, thinking, memory, etc.).
— morality; and the ability to communicate with other people (communication skills).
This is what needs to be taught in school, and effectively and systematically.
And if a person needs to know the formula for calculating the lateral surface area of a cone, he will want to read «War and Peace», knowing English, learn more German, Polish or Chinese, «1C Accounting», or the C ++ programming language. Then he must, first of all, possess the skills necessary to do it quickly and efficiently, as well as apply the knowledge gained with the maximum benefit — knowledge that is really the key to success in any activity.
So, is it possible in modern conditions to create a system for the production of a quality educational product? — Maybe. Just like creating an efficient production system for any other product. To do this, as in any other area, in education it is necessary to create conditions in which the best is encouraged, and the worst is deprived of resources — efficient work is stimulated economically.
The proposed system of distribution of public resources spent on education is similar to the health insurance system used by developed countries — there is a certain amount of insurance that is allocated to the institution that the citizen chooses. Naturally, the state, as in the field of medicine, reserves the control and supervisory function. Thus, the citizens themselves, by choosing, stimulate the best establishments that offer their services at the most optimal price-quality ratio. In this case, there is a certain amount that is spent by the state on the education of one student, and the educational institution (which offers the most acceptable learning conditions) is chosen by the student (his parents). This is how, first of all, conditions are created that stimulate the management (leadership) of educational institutions to improve their product. In turn, management already takes care of encouraging (motivating and stimulating) staff, attracting specialists of appropriate qualifications and levels, dividing pay depending on the results of work, and ensuring the appropriate professional level of teachers. To provide knowledge that is the key to success, especially in the labor market, a specialist is needed who owns this knowledge himself. Obviously, today’s teachers do not have such knowledge, as evidenced by the level of remuneration for their work (the main indicator of the value of a specialist in the labor market). Therefore, we can say that the work of a teacher today is a low-skilled job of losers in the labor market. Creative, effective specialists do not go to general education schools. That is why an illusion has been created in our country that knowledge is not a guarantee of success, although, having considered the trends of the modern economy, and, in particular, the labor market of developed countries, we are convinced of the exact opposite. Let me remind you that the Stalinist-Soviet system has long proved its inefficiency in all sectors of production without exception. The education sector has also not been fulfilling its functions of providing knowledge necessary for the modern labor market for a long time. In such a situation, there is no question of the competitiveness of the state, in the conditions of the “knowledge economy”. The education sector, in order to provide the necessary professional potential of the country, is in dire need of reforms. It should also be noted that the proposed model of the education system in no way destroys the existing system.
The intellectual potential of the nation in the modern world is provided by the system of education (purposeful education) in the state. A priori, it is the national education system, as a means of socialization, that forms the nation, as such, in general. Socialization (education), in a broad sense, is the process of formation of a person’s higher mental activity. What is socialization and its role can be especially clearly understood by the example of the so-called «Mowgli phenomenon» — cases when people from an early age are deprived of human communication, brought up by animals. Even falling, later, into modern human society, such individuals are not only unable to become a full-fledged human personality, but also to learn the elementary skills of human behavior.
So, education is the result of the assimilation of systematized knowledge, skills and abilities, the result of both mental (moral and intellectual) and physical education. The level of education is inextricably linked with the level of development of society. The education system of a nation is the level of its development: the development of law, economics, ecology; level of moral and physical well-being.