Why was the Soviet education system better? Who are they, the future elite of the country? Degradation of the system of secondary vocational education in the late USSR

Myth: The Soviet education system was perfect

This myth is actively replicated by the communists and people who are simply fiercely nostalgic for the USSR. In reality, Soviet education was comparatively strong in the natural sciences, mathematics and engineering, and sports. However, in most other areas it was comparatively weak, both in comparison with Western counterparts of that era and in comparison with modern education:
History, economics, philosophy and other humanities in the USSR were highly ideologized, their teaching was based on a deeply outdated 19th century Marxist paradigm, while the latest foreign achievements in these areas were largely ignored - or were presented exclusively in a negative way, as "bourgeois science". In general, the students of Soviet schools and universities formed a rather simplified and distorted humanitarian picture of the world.

Foreign languages ​​in Soviet schools were taught on average at a very low level. Unlike Western countries, in the USSR there were practically no opportunities to invite native teachers, and at the same time access to foreign literature, films and songs in the original language was difficult. Almost no exchange of students was carried out, which allows to seriously raise the level of language proficiency while living abroad.
A rather sad situation developed in art education, architecture and design in the late USSR, which is clearly seen in the deterioration of the architectural appearance of Soviet cities in the 1960s-1980s, as well as in the mass desire of Soviet citizens to buy foreign things - qualitatively. and beautifully made.
If it seems to someone that all these humanitarian areas are not important, then it is worth noting that it was precisely because of the underestimation, because of the insufficient or incorrect development of these areas that the Soviet Union eventually collapsed so easily.

Myth: problems in the education system began in the era of perestroika and the collapse of the USSR

In reality, there were always certain problems in the Soviet education system, and those main crisis phenomena that had to be dealt with modern Russia, began to grow back in the late USSR and were already noticeable in the 1970s and 1980s.
Until the 1960s Soviet education had a key task: to train as many workers, engineers and scientists as possible in order to meet the country's needs for specialists and labor force during rapid industrialization, and also to make up for the colossal losses of educated people and skilled workers caused by the civil war, white emigration, the Great Patriotic War, as well as repressions. Moreover, workers and specialists needed to be prepared with a large margin in case new war and new human losses (in the same way, duplicate enterprises and production sites were built in the USSR in case of war). In the conditions of a serious shortage of personnel at that time, any graduates of universities and vocational schools were very quickly "torn off with their hands", arranging for work at various great construction sites, new factories, and design bureaus. A lot of people were lucky, and they got interesting and important jobs, they could make a good career. At the same time, the quality of education was not critical: everyone was in demand, and often they had to finish their studies right at work.
Approximately in the 1960s. the situation has changed. The rate of urbanization and industrial growth in the country has dropped sharply, industry and science have had time to fill up with personnel, and their overproduction in the conditions of a long peaceful period has lost its meaning. At the same time, the number of vocational schools, universities and students had grown sharply by that time, but if earlier they were in super demand, now the state could no longer provide everyone with the same attractive jobs as before. New industries were created in insufficient quantities, in the old ones the key positions were firmly occupied, and the old men of the Brezhnev era were by no means in a hurry to give up their places to the youth.
Actually, it was then, in the last decades of the USSR, that problems in education began to grow, which can be summarized approximately as follows:
A sharp increase in the contingent of universities and vocational schools, which led to a drop in the average level of students and a drop in the ability of the state to provide everyone with good jobs (the obvious solution would be the development of the service sector, the permission of entrepreneurship in order to create new jobs, the development of self-employment opportunities - but due to its specificity, the Soviet state could not or did not want to take such steps).
The fall of the social role of the teacher and teacher, the decline in salaries in the field of education in the late USSR (if in 1940 the salary in the Soviet education system was 97% of the industry average, then in 1960 it was 79%, and in 1985 it was total 63%.
The growing lag behind the West in a number of disciplines, caused by the closed borders and the ideological interference of the state in science.
These problems were inherited by modern Russia, were partly resolved, partly aggravated.

Myth: Soviet education was better at raising a person

From the point of view of those who are nostalgic for the USSR, Soviet education brought up a Man and a Creator, while modern Russian education brings up philistines, consumers and businessmen (it is not entirely clear why the latter are denied the right to be both people and creators).
But is it really so good to bring up people in the USSR?
Soviet education brought up entire generations of alcoholics - from the 1960s to the 1980s. alcohol consumption in the country has more than tripled, as a result of which, since 1964, life expectancy for men has stopped growing in the RSFSR (unlike Western countries), alcohol mortality and alcohol crime have sharply increased.
Soviet education brought up a society of people who, since the late 1960s. ceased to reproduce itself - the number of children per woman fell to less than 2.1, as a result of which the number of subsequent generations became smaller than that of the previous ones. At the same time, the number of abortions in the USSR exceeded the number of children born and amounted to about 4-5 million per year. The number of divorces in the USSR was also colossal, and remains so in Russia to this day.
Soviet education brought up a generation of people who destroyed the USSR and relatively easily abandoned much of what they had been taught before.
Soviet education brought up people who massively joined the ranks of organized crime in the 1980s and 1990s. (and in many ways before).
Soviet education brought up people who easily believed the many charlatans of the perestroika and 1990s: they joined religious sects and neo-fascist organizations, carried their last money into financial pyramids, enthusiastically read and listened to various freaks-pseudo-scientists, etc.
All this indicates that with the upbringing of a person in the USSR, to put it mildly, not everything was perfect.
Of course, the point here is not only in the education system, but also in other aspects of the social situation. However, Soviet education could not reverse this situation and largely contributed to its formation:
- insufficiently brought up critical thinking;
— the initiative was not sufficiently encouraged;
- Paternalism and excessive reliance on authorities were actively nurtured;
- there was no adequate education in the field of family and marriage;
- ideological framework narrowed the view of the world;
- many negative social phenomena were hushed up, instead of studying them and fighting them.

Myth: Capitalism main reason problems in education

From the point of view of communist-minded critics, the main cause of problems in education is capitalism. It is not only about the commercialization of education and general approach to the education of a person, but also in general about the capitalist structure of society and the economy, which is supposedly in a deep crisis, and the crisis in education is just one of the manifestations of this.
The capitalist crisis of society and education can be conceived as a global one or, above all, as an internal Russian one - allegedly, surrounded by enemies and ruined by capitalists, Russia can no longer afford capitalism and capitalist education.
From the point of view of Marxists, the main types of crisis associated with capitalism are the crisis of overproduction and the crisis associated with the lack of resources. The first is caused by the overproduction of goods that consumers cannot or do not want to consume, and the second is the lack of resources to produce and maintain the achieved standard of living in an ever-expanding capitalist economy (resources include land and labor). Both types of crises force the capitalists to reduce the consumption of the population of the country and at the same time start wars - for new markets or for new resources. Now the West is in a state of double crisis, and therefore Russia is in danger - partly because they want to profit from its resources, and partly because it itself has adopted capitalism instead of socialism.
The world crisis does indeed take place, but all these constructions linking it with the opposition of capitalism and socialism, as well as with the problems of education, are rather shaky and dubious.
Firstly, crises of overproduction and shortage of resources also take place under socialism - for example, the same overproduction of workers and engineers in the late USSR, or a crisis of shortage good teachers in foreign languages ​​(more than notable examples- overproduction of tanks and children's shoes in the late USSR).
Secondly, in the current global crisis, Russia has a very high chance of resisting, both thanks to the Soviet military heritage ( strong army and the military-industrial complex), and thanks to the royal heritage in the form of a vast territory with rich resources.
Thirdly, the way out of the crisis is not necessarily associated with war - the development of technologies can help develop new resources or create new markets. And here there are good chances for both the West and Russia.
It is also worth remembering obvious fact: the western system of education (of which the Russian system is an offshoot, and after it the Soviet system) was created precisely under the conditions of capitalism in the era of modern times. As for the Soviet system, it is a direct continuation of the education system in the late Russian Empire, which was created under capitalism. At the same time, although the education system covered only a part of society by 1917, it quickly grew in scale, and already in mid-nineteenth century in Russia there was an excellent higher and engineering education by world standards, and in the early 1910s. Russia has become the European leader in the number of engineering graduates.
Thus, there is no reason to oppose capitalism and quality education. As for attempts to explain the degradation of education not simply by capitalism, but by capitalism in the stage of crisis, then, as already mentioned, crises also occur under socialism.

Myth: Russian education has changed dramatically compared to the Soviet one

From the point of view of critics, the education reforms have incredibly changed the educational system in Russia and led to its degradation, and only a few last remnants of Soviet education still survive and keep everything afloat.
But is modern Russian education really that far removed from the Soviet one? In fact, for the most part, Soviet education in Russia has been preserved:
In Russia, the same class-lesson system operates as in the USSR (originally borrowed from German schools of the 18th-19th centuries).
The specialization of schools is preserved.
The division of education into primary, complete and incomplete secondary, secondary specialized and higher education is preserved (at the same time, higher education has been largely transferred from 5 years of study to the bachelor's + master's system - 4 + 2 years, but by and large this has not changed much ).
Almost all the same subjects are taught, only a few new ones have been added (at the same time, the programs for some humanitarian subjects have been greatly changed - but, as a rule, for the better).
There is a strong tradition in the teaching of mathematics and science (compared to most other countries).
In general, the same system of assessments and the same system of work of teachers have been preserved, although accountability and bureaucracy have noticeably increased (introduced to improve control and monitoring, but in many respects turned out to be unnecessary and burdensome, for which it is rightly criticized).
The accessibility of education has been preserved and even increased, and although about a third of students are now paid students, a significant part of out-of-school education has also become paid. However, this is nothing new in comparison with the Soviet era: paid education for students and high school students operated in the USSR in 1940-1956.
Most of the school buildings remained the same (and the renovations carried out clearly did not worsen them).
Most of today's Russian teachers were trained back in the USSR or in the 1990s, before the reforms in education.
The USE was introduced, which is the most noticeable difference Russian system from the Soviet, however, it is worth emphasizing once again that this is not some kind of teaching method, but simply a more objective method of testing knowledge.
Of course, various experimental schools have appeared in Russia in a noticeable number, in which the organization and teaching methods differ to a much greater extent from Soviet models. However, in most cases we are dealing with slightly modified and modernized Soviet-style schools. The same is true for universities, if we exclude frankly profanity "degree-building" institutions (which began to actively close since 2012).
Thus, in general, Russian education continues to follow Soviet patterns, and those people who criticize Russian education, in fact, criticize the Soviet system and the results of its work.

Myth: A return to the Soviet education system will solve all problems

First, as shown above, there were many problems and weaknesses in Soviet education.
Secondly, as shown above, Russian education as a whole is not that far removed from the Soviet one.
Third, key contemporary issues Russian education started back in the USSR, and there were no solutions found for these problems.
Fourthly, a number of modern problems are associated with the development information technologies, which were simply absent in the USSR at this level, and the Soviet experience will not help here.
Fifth, if we talk about the most successful period of Soviet education (1920s-1950s), since then society has seriously changed, and in our time we have to solve largely different tasks. In any case, reproduce those socio-demographic conditions in which it became possible Soviet successes, is now impossible.
Sixth, education reforms do carry a certain risk, however, conservation of the situation and the rejection of reforms is a sure path to defeat. There are problems and they need to be addressed.
Finally, objective data show that the problems of modern Russian education are largely exaggerated and, with varying degrees success, are gradually resolved.

Soviet education in certain circles is considered to be the best in the world. In the same circles, it is customary to consider the current generation as lost - they say, these young "victims of the Unified State Examination" cannot stand any comparison with us, the technical intellectuals who went through the crucible of Soviet schools ...

Of course, the truth lies far away from these stereotypes. A certificate of graduation from a Soviet school, if it is a sign of the quality of education, is only in the Soviet sense. Indeed, some people who studied in the USSR amaze us with the depth of their knowledge, but at the same time, many others no less amaze us with the depth of their ignorance. Do not know Latin letters, do not know how to add simple fractions, physically not understanding the simplest written texts - alas, for Soviet citizens this was a variant of the norm.

At the same time, Soviet schools also had undeniable advantages - for example, teachers then had the opportunity to freely give deuces and leave “not pulling” students for the second year. This whip created the mood necessary for study, which is so lacking now in many modern schools and universities.

Let's get right to the point of the post. A long overdue article on the pros and cons of Soviet education was created on the Patriot's Handbook by the efforts of a team of authors. I am publishing this article here and I ask you to join the discussion - and, if necessary, even supplement and correct the article directly on the Directory, since this is a wiki project that is available for editing by everyone:

This article examines the Soviet education system in terms of its advantages and disadvantages. The Soviet system followed the task of educating and shaping a personality worthy of realizing for future generations the main national idea of ​​the Soviet Union - a bright communist future. This task was subordinated not only to the teaching of knowledge about nature, society and the state, but the education of patriotism, internationalism and morality.

== Pros (+) ==

Mass character. AT Soviet time for the first time in the history of Russia, almost universal literacy was achieved, close to 100%.

Of course, even in the era of the late USSR, many people of the older generation had only 3-4 grades of education behind them, because far from everyone could go full course schooling due to the war, mass migrations, the need to go to work early. However, virtually all citizens learned to read and write.
For mass education, one must also thank the tsarist government, which in the 20 pre-revolutionary years practically doubled the level of literacy in the country - by 1917, almost half of the population was literate. The Bolsheviks, as a result, received a huge number of literate and trained teachers, and they only had to double the proportion of literate people in the country for the second time, which they did.

Wide access to education for national and linguistic minorities. During the process of so-called indigenization, the Bolsheviks in the 1920s and 1930s. for the first time introduced education in the languages ​​of many small peoples of Russia (often creating and introducing alphabets and writing for these languages ​​along the way). Representatives of the outlying peoples got the opportunity to become literate, first in their native language, and then in Russian, which accelerated the elimination of illiteracy.

On the other hand, this very indigenization, which was partially curtailed in the late 1930s, managed to make a significant contribution to the future collapse of the USSR along national borders.

High availability for the majority of the population (universal free secondary education, very common higher education). In tsarist Russia, education was associated with class restrictions, although as its availability grew, these restrictions weakened and blurred, and by 1917, with money or special talents, representatives of any class could receive a good education. With the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, class restrictions were finally lifted. Primary and then secondary education became universal, and the number of students in higher educational institutions increased many times over.

High motivation of students, respect of society for education. Young people in the USSR really wanted to study very much. Under Soviet conditions, when the right to private property was severely limited and entrepreneurial activity was practically suppressed (especially after the closure of artels under Khrushchev), getting an education was the main way to advance in life and start making good money. There were few alternatives: far from everyone had enough health for Stakhanov’s manual labor, and for a successful party or military career it was also necessary to improve their level of education (illiterate proletarians were recruited without looking back only in the first decade after the revolution).

Respect for the work of the teacher and teacher. At least until the 1960s and 1970s, while illiteracy was being eliminated in the USSR and the system of universal secondary education was being established, the teaching profession remained one of the most respected and in demand in society. The teachers were relatively literate and capable people, moreover, motivated by the idea of ​​bringing enlightenment to the masses. In addition, it was a real alternative to hard work on a collective farm or in production. A similar situation was in high school, where, in addition, during Stalin's time there were very good salaries (already under Khrushchev, however, the salaries of the intelligentsia were reduced to the level of workers and even lower). Songs were written about the school, films were made, many of which were included in the golden fund of national culture.

Relatively high level of initial training of students entering higher educational institutions. The number of students in the RSFSR at the end of the Soviet era was at least two times lower than in modern Russia, and the proportion of young people in the population was higher. Accordingly, with a similar population in the RSFSR and in the modern Russian Federation, the competition for each place in Soviet universities was twice as high as in modern Russian ones, and as a result, the contingent was recruited there with a better and more capable one. It is with this circumstance that the complaints of modern teachers about a sharp drop in the level of preparation of applicants and students are primarily associated.

Very high quality technical education. Soviet physics, astronomy, geography, geology, applied technical disciplines and, of course, mathematics, were without a doubt at the highest world level. The huge number of outstanding discoveries and technical inventions of the Soviet era speaks for itself, and the list of world-famous Soviet scientists and inventors looks very impressive. However, even here we must say special thanks to pre-revolutionary Russian science and higher education, which served as a solid foundation for all these achievements. But it is impossible not to admit that the Soviet Union succeeded - even despite the mass emigration of Russian scientists after the revolution - to fully revive, continue and develop at the highest level the domestic tradition in the field of technical thought, natural and exact sciences.

Satisfaction of the state's colossal demand for new personnel in the face of a sharp increase in industry, the army and science (thanks to large-scale state planning). In the course of mass industrialization in the USSR, several new branches of industry were created and the scale of production in all branches was significantly increased many times and dozens of times. Such impressive growth required the training of many specialists capable of working with the most modern technology. In addition, it was necessary to make up for significant losses of personnel as a result of revolutionary emigration, civil war, repressions and the Great Patriotic War. The Soviet education system successfully coped with the training of many millions of specialists in hundreds of specialties - thanks to this, the most important state tasks related to the country's survival were solved.

Relatively high scholarships. The average scholarship in the late USSR was 40 rubles, while the salary of an engineer was 130-150 rubles. That is, scholarships reached about 30% of salaries, which is much higher than in the case of modern scholarships, which are large enough only for honors students, graduate students and doctoral students.

Developed and free extracurricular education. In the USSR, there were thousands of palaces and houses of pioneers, stations young technicians, young tourists and young naturalists, many other circles. Unlike most of today's circles, sections and electives, Soviet extracurricular education was free.

The world's best sports education system. From the very beginning, the Soviet Union paid great attention to the development of physical culture and sports. If in the Russian Empire sports education was only in its infancy, then in the Soviet Union it reached the forefront in the world. The success of the Soviet sports system is clearly visible from the results on Olympic Games: The Soviet team has consistently won first or second place at every Olympics since 1952, when the USSR began participating in the international Olympic movement.

== Cons (−) ==

Low quality liberal education due to ideological restrictions and clichés. Almost all humanitarian and social disciplines in schools and universities of the USSR were loaded to one degree or another with Marxism-Leninism, and during Stalin's lifetime - also with Stalinism. At the heart of the concept of teaching Russian history and even history ancient world lay the "Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks", according to which the entire world history was presented as a process of maturation of the prerequisites for the revolution of 1917 and the future building of a communist society. In the teaching of economics and politics, the main place was occupied by Marxist political economy, in the teaching of philosophy - by dialectical materialism. These directions in themselves are worthy of attention, however, they were declared the only true and correct ones, and all the others were declared either their predecessors or false directions. As a result, huge layers of humanitarian knowledge either completely fell out of the Soviet education system, or were presented in a dosed and exclusively critical way, as “bourgeois science”. Party history, political economy and diamat were compulsory subjects in Soviet universities, and in the late Soviet period they were among the least loved by students (as a rule, they were far from the main specialty, divorced from reality and at the same time relatively difficult, so their study is mainly came down to memorizing formulaic phrases and ideological formulations).

Blackening of history and distortion of moral guidelines. In the USSR, school and university teaching of history was characterized by denigration of the tsarist period in the history of the country, and in the early Soviet period this denigration was much more ambitious than the post-perestroika denigration of Soviet history. Many pre-revolutionary statesmen were declared "servants of tsarism", their names were deleted from history books or mentioned in a strictly negative context. And vice versa, outright robbers, like Stenka Razin, were declared “ folk heroes”, and terrorists, like the assassins of Alexander II, were called “freedom fighters” and “advanced people”. In the Soviet concept of world history, a lot of attention was paid to all kinds of oppression of slaves and peasants, all kinds of uprisings and rebellions (of course, this is also important topics, but by no means less important than the history of technology and military affairs, geopolitical and dynastic history, etc.). The concept of "class struggle" was implanted, according to which representatives of the "exploiting classes" were to be persecuted or even destroyed. From 1917 to 1934 history was not taught in universities at all, all historical departments were closed, traditional patriotism was condemned as “great power” and “chauvinism”, and instead “proletarian internationalism” was implanted. Then Stalin abruptly changed course towards the revival of patriotism and returned history to universities, however Negative consequences post-revolutionary denial and distortion historical memory are still felt today: many historical heroes were forgotten, for several generations of people the perception of history was sharply broken into periods before the revolution and after, many good traditions were lost.

The negative impact of ideology and political struggle on academic staff and individual disciplines. As a result of the revolution and civil war in 1918–1924 about 2 million people were forced to emigrate from the RSFSR (the so-called white emigration), and most of the emigrants were representatives of the most educated segments of the population, including an extremely large number of scientists, engineers and teachers who emigrated. According to some estimates, about three-quarters of Russian scientists and engineers died or emigrated during that period. However, already before the First World War, Russia ranked first in Europe in terms of the number of students in universities, so there were a lot of specialists trained in tsarist times in the country (although, for the most part, quite young specialists). Thanks to this, the acute shortage of teaching staff that arose in the USSR was successfully filled in most industries by the end of the 1920s (partly due to an increase in the load on the remaining teachers, but mainly due to the enhanced training of new ones). Subsequently, however, the Soviet scientific and teaching staff were seriously weakened during the repressions and ideological campaigns carried out by Soviet power. The persecution of genetics is widely known, due to which Russia, which at the beginning of the 20th century was one of the world leaders in biological science, by the end of the 20th century moved into the category of lagging behind. Due to the introduction of ideological struggle into science, many outstanding scientists of the humanities and social areas suffered (historians, philosophers and economists of a non-Marxist persuasion; linguists who participated in discussions on Marrism, as well as Slavists; Byzantologists and theologians; Orientalists - many of them were shot on false charges spying on Japan or other countries because of their professional connections), but representatives of the natural and exact sciences also suffered (the case of the mathematician Luzin, the Pulkovo case of astronomers, the Krasnoyarsk case of geologists). As a result of these events, entire scientific schools, and in many areas there was a noticeable lag behind world science. The culture of scientific discussion was excessively ideologized and politicized, which, of course, had a negative impact on education.

Restrictions on access to higher education for certain groups of the population. In fact, the opportunities to receive higher education in the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s were almost non-existent. the so-called dispossessed were deprived, including private merchants, entrepreneurs (using hired labor), representatives of the clergy, and former policemen. Children from families of nobles, merchants, clergy often faced obstacles when trying to get higher education in pre-war period. In the union republics of the USSR, preferences for admission to universities were received by representatives of titular nationalities. In the post-war period, the percentage rate for admission to the most prestigious universities was tacitly introduced in relation to Jews.

Restrictions on acquaintance with foreign scientific literature, restrictions international communication scientists. If in the 1920s In Soviet science, pre-revolutionary practice continued, involving very long business trips and internships for scientists and the best students, constant participation in international conferences, free correspondence and unlimited flow of foreign scientific literature, then in the 1930s. the situation began to change for the worse. Especially in the period after 1937 and before the war, having foreign connections became simply dangerous for the lives and careers of scientists, since so many were then arrested on trumped-up charges of espionage. In the late 1940s in the course of the ideological campaign against cosmopolitanism, it came to the point that references to the works of foreign authors began to be regarded as a manifestation of "cow-worship before the West", and many were forced to accompany such references with criticism and stereotyped condemnation of "bourgeois science". The desire to publish in foreign journals was also condemned, and, most unpleasantly, almost half of the leading scientific journals of the world, including publications like Science and Nature, were withdrawn from free access and sent to special storage facilities. This “turned out to be in the hands of the most mediocre and unprincipled scientists”, for whom “mass separation from foreign literature made it easier to use it for covert plagiarism and passing it off as original research.” As a result, in the middle of the 20th century Soviet science, and after it, education, in conditions of limited external relations, began to fall out of the global process and “cook in its own juice”: it became much more difficult to distinguish world-class scientists from compilers, plagiarists and pseudoscientists, many achievements of Western science remained unknown or little known in the USSR . In the post-Stalin period, the situation with the "puppeting" of Soviet science was only partially corrected, as a result, there is still a problem of low citation of Russian scientists abroad and insufficient familiarity with advanced foreign research.

Relatively low quality of teaching foreign languages. If in the West in the post-war period the practice of attracting foreigners - native speakers to teaching was established, as well as the practice of large-scale student exchange, in which students could live in another country for several months and best study colloquial, the Soviet Union lagged far behind in the teaching of foreign languages ​​due to the closed borders and the almost complete absence of emigration from the West to the USSR. Also, for censorship reasons, the flow of foreign literature, films, and recordings of songs to the Soviet Union was limited, which did not at all contribute to the study of foreign languages. Compared to the USSR, in modern Russia there are much more opportunities for learning languages.

Ideological censorship, autarky and stagnation in art education in the late USSR. Russia at the beginning of the 20th century and the early USSR were among the world leaders and trendsetters in the field of artistic culture. Avant-garde painting, constructivism, futurism, Russian ballet, the Stanislavsky system, the art of film editing - this and much more aroused admiration from the whole world. However, by the end of the 1930s. the variety of styles and trends was replaced by the dominance of socialist realism imposed from above - in itself it was a very worthy and interesting style, but the problem was the artificial suppression of alternatives. Reliance on their own traditions was proclaimed, while attempts at new experiments began in many cases to be condemned (“Muddle instead of music”), and borrowings from Western cultural techniques were subjected to restrictions and persecution, as in the case of jazz, and then rock music. Indeed, experiments and borrowings were not successful in all cases, but the scale of condemnation and restrictions were so inadequate that this led to the discouragement of innovation in art and the gradual loss of world cultural leadership by the Soviet Union, as well as the emergence of an "underground culture" in the USSR.

Degradation of education in the field of architecture, design, urban planning. During Khrushchev's "fight against architectural excesses" the entire system of architectural education, design and construction was seriously affected. In 1956, the Academy of Architecture of the USSR was reorganized and renamed the Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR, and in 1963 it was completely closed (until 1989). As a result, the era of the late USSR became a time of decline in design and a growing crisis in the field of architecture and the urban environment. The architectural tradition was interrupted and was replaced by the soulless construction of microdistricts inconvenient for life; instead of a “bright future”, a “gray present” was built in the USSR.

Cancellation of teaching of fundamental classical disciplines. In the Soviet Union, such an important subject as logic was excluded from the school curriculum (it was studied in pre-revolutionary gymnasiums). Logic was returned to the program and a textbook was released only in 1947, but in 1955 it was removed again, and, with the exception of physics and mathematics lyceums and other elite schools, logic is still not taught to schoolchildren in Russia. Meanwhile, logic is one of the foundations of the scientific method and one of the most important subjects that gives skills to distinguish between truth and falsehood, to conduct discussions and resist manipulation. Another important difference between the Soviet school curriculum and the pre-revolutionary gymnasium was the abolition of the teaching of Latin and Greek. Knowledge of these ancient languages ​​may seem useless only at first glance, because almost all modern scientific terminology, medical and biological nomenclature, and mathematical notation are built on them; in addition, the study of these languages ​​is a good gymnastics for the mind and helps to develop the skills of discussion. Several generations of prominent Russian scientists and writers who worked before the revolution and in the first decades of the USSR were brought up in the tradition of classical education, which included the study of logic, Latin and Greek, and the almost complete rejection of all this hardly had a positive effect on education in the USSR and Russia.

Problems with education moral values, partial loss of the educational role of education. The best Soviet teachers have always insisted that the goal of education is not only the transfer of knowledge and skills, but also the upbringing of a moral, cultured person. In many ways, this task was successfully solved in the early USSR - then it was possible to solve the problem of mass child homelessness and juvenile delinquency that developed after the civil war; managed to raise the cultural level of significant masses of the population. However, in some respects, Soviet education not only failed to educate morality, but in some ways even exacerbated the problem. Many educational institutions pre-revolutionary Russia, including church education and institutions of noble maidens, directly set themselves the main task of educating a moral person and preparing him either for the role of a spouse in the family, or for the role of "brother" or "sister" in the community of believers. Under Soviet rule, all such institutions were closed, specialized analogues were not created for them, the education of morality was entrusted to an ordinary mass school, separating it from religion, which was replaced by propaganda of atheism. The moral goal of Soviet education was no longer the education of a worthy member of the family and community, as it was before, but the education of a member of the working collective. For the accelerated development of industry and science, perhaps this was not bad. However, such an approach could hardly solve the problems of a high level of abortions (for the first time in the world legalized in the USSR), a high level of divorces and a general degradation of family values, a sharp transition to having few children, growing mass alcoholism and extremely low life expectancy for men in the late USSR by world standards.

Almost complete elimination of home education. Many outstanding figures of Russian history and culture received home education instead of school, which proves that such education can be very effective. Of course, this form of education is not available to everyone, but either to relatively wealthy people who can hire teachers, or simply to intelligent and educated people who can devote a lot of time to their children and personally go through the school curriculum with them. However, after the revolution, home education in the USSR was by no means encouraged (largely for ideological reasons). The system of external studies in the USSR was introduced in 1935, but for a long time it was designed almost exclusively for adults, and a full-fledged opportunity for external education for schoolchildren was introduced only in 1985-1991.

Non-alternative co-education for boys and girls. One of the dubious Soviet innovations in education was the compulsory joint education of boys and girls instead of pre-revolutionary separate education. Then this step was justified by the struggle for women's rights, the lack of staff and premises for the organization of separate schools, as well as widespread collaborative learning practices in some of the world's leading countries, including the United States. However latest research in the same USA they show that separate education increases the results of students by 10-20%. Everything is quite simple: in joint schools, boys and girls are distracted by each other, there are noticeably more conflicts and incidents; boys, up to the last grades of school, lag behind girls of the same age in learning, since the male body develops more slowly. On the contrary, with separate education, it becomes possible to better take into account the behavioral and cognitive characteristics of different sexes to improve performance, self-esteem of adolescents is more dependent on academic performance, and not on some other things. Interestingly, in 1943, separate education for boys and girls was introduced in the cities, which, after the death of Stalin, was again eliminated in 1954.

The system of orphanages in the late USSR. While in Western countries in the middle of the 20th century they began to massively close orphanages and place orphans in families (this process was generally completed by 1980), in the USSR the system of orphanages was not only preserved, but even degraded. compared to pre-war times. Indeed, during the struggle against homelessness in the 1920s, according to the ideas of Makarenko and other teachers, labor became the main element in the re-education of former homeless children, while the pupils of labor communes were given the opportunity to self-government, in order to develop skills of independence and socialization. This technique gave excellent results, especially considering that before the revolution, civil war and famine, most homeless children still had some experience family life. However, later, due to the prohibition of child labor, this system was abandoned in the USSR. By 1990, there were 564 orphanages in the USSR, the level of socialization of orphanage residents was low, and many former orphanage children fell into the ranks of criminals and outcasts. In the 1990s the number of orphanages in Russia almost tripled, but in the second half of the 2000s, the process of their liquidation began, and in the 2010s. it is close to completion.

Degradation of the system of secondary vocational education in the late USSR. Although in the USSR they extolled the worker in every way and promoted working professions, by the 1970s. the system of secondary vocational education in the country began to clearly degrade. “If you study poorly at school, you will go to vocational school!” (vocational technical school) - this is what parents said to negligent schoolchildren. In vocational schools they took poor and triple students who did not enter universities, forcibly placed juvenile criminals there, and all this against the background of a comparative surplus of specialist workers and poor development of the service sector due to the lack of developed entrepreneurship (that is, alternatives in employment, as now, then there were no It was). Cultural and educational work in vocational schools turned out to be poorly organized, students of “vocational schools” became associated with hooliganism, drunkenness and a general low level of development. The negative image of vocational education in working specialties persists in Russia to this day, although qualified turners, locksmiths, millers, plumbers are now among the highly paid professions, whose representatives are in short supply.

Insufficient upbringing critical thinking among citizens, excessive unification and paternalism. Education, like the media and Soviet culture in general, they brought up in citizens faith in a powerful and wise party that leads everyone, cannot lie or make major mistakes. Of course, faith in the strength of one's people and state is an important and necessary thing, but in order to support this faith, one cannot go too far, systematically hush up the truth and severely suppress alternative opinions. As a result, when during the years of perestroika and glasnost, these very alternative opinions were given freedom, when previously hushed up facts about the history and modern problems of the country began to massively emerge, huge masses of citizens felt deceived, lost confidence in the state and in everything that they were taught in school in many humanities. Finally, citizens were unable to resist outright lies, myths and media manipulation, which ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR and the deep degradation of society and the economy in the 1990s. Alas, the Soviet educational and social system failed to bring up a sufficient level of caution, critical thinking, tolerance for alternative opinions, and a culture of discussion. Also, the education of the late Soviet model did not help to instill in citizens sufficient independence, the desire to personally solve their problems, and not wait until the state or someone else does it for you. All this had to be learned from the bitter post-Soviet experience.

== Conclusions (−) ==

In assessing the Soviet education system, it is difficult to come to a single and exhaustive conclusion due to its inconsistency.

Positive points:

The final eradication of illiteracy and the provision of universal secondary education
- World leadership in the field of higher technical education, in natural and exact sciences.
- The key role of education in ensuring industrialization, victory in the Great Patriotic War and scientific and technological achievements in the post-war period.
- High prestige and respect for the teaching profession, a high level of motivation of teachers and students.
- High level of development of sports education, wide promotion of sports activities.
- The emphasis on technical education made it possible to solve the most important tasks for the Soviet state.

Negative points:

Lagging behind the West in the field of liberal arts education due to the negative influence of ideology and the foreign policy situation. The teaching of history, economics and foreign languages ​​was particularly hard hit.
- Excessive unification and centralization of school and, to a lesser extent, university education, coupled with its small contacts with the outside world. This led to the loss of many successful pre-revolutionary practices and to a growing lag behind foreign science in a number of areas.
- Direct guilt in the degradation of family values ​​and the general decline in morals in the late USSR, which led to negative trends in the development of demography and social relations.
- Insufficient education of critical thinking among citizens, which led to the inability of society to effectively resist manipulation during the information war.
- Art education suffered from censorship and high ideological content, as well as from obstacles to mastering foreign techniques; one of the most important consequences of this is the decline of design, architecture and urban planning in the late USSR.
- That is, in its humanitarian aspect, the Soviet education system, in the end, not only did not help solve key tasks to preserve and strengthen the state, but also became one of the factors of the moral, demographic and social decline of the country. Which, however, does not negate the impressive achievements of the USSR in the field of the humanities and arts.

PS. By the way, about logic. Logic textbook, as well as others entertaining materials on the art of civilized discussion, can be found here.

Myth one: Soviet education was the best in the world. When we talk about Soviet education, we imagine something monolithic, static, unchanging throughout its entire length. Actually, it wasn't. Soviet education, like any social system, of course, changed, underwent certain dynamics, that is, the logic of this formation changed, the goals and tasks that confronted it changed. And when we generally say the word “best”, it is very loaded with emotional evaluation. What does “better” mean, compared to what is the best, where are the criteria, where are the assessments, why do we think so?

In fact, if we take Soviet education from the beginning of the 1920s, when the Bolsheviks finally came to power, to the collapse of the Soviet Union, we see that it has changed significantly. For example, in the 1920s, the main task for Soviet education was the elimination of illiteracy. Most of the population - it is almost 80%, and not only among the peasant population, but also some people in the cities, practically did not know how, or did not know how to read and write at all. Accordingly, it was necessary to teach them this. Created special schools for adult citizens from 16 to 50 years old, special courses were created for the younger generations and there was a completely understandable task - the elimination of illiteracy.

If we take the later era of the 1930s-1940s, then, of course, the most important task there was to create personnel for accelerated naturalization, to train specific technical personnel who will ensure the accelerated modernization of industry. And this task is also understandable. School courses were built accordingly, technical schools, colleges and so on were built accordingly. And Soviet education also coped with this task, courses were prepared and, as you and I know, Stalin's industrialization was carried out in the shortest possible time.

If we take the post-war era of the 1950s-1960s, then here the main task for Soviet education is again to provide scientific and technical personnel for a big breakthrough in space, in the military-industrial sphere, and again, Soviet education coped with this task, we with you we remember the words of John F. Kennedy that space race we lost to the Russians at the school desk. That is, with those tasks that faced the Soviet education, it, in principle, coped. But we can already see that it was heterogeneous and these tasks changed.

However, we are talking mainly about physical and mathematical education, that is, Soviet education was aimed at specific main tasks. All other spheres, and first of all the humanitarian sphere, respectively, were in a completely different state, in fact there were no foreign languages, and at the level at which they were taught, those people who were lucky enough to escape abroad were stated that few people understand them. Moreover, humanitarian knowledge itself was blinded by ideological clichés. And in general, and as a whole, this sphere was mothballed and its development was called into question.

Why was there a focus on mathematics, physics and the exact sciences? There were both objective and subjective reasons. The objective reasons were that it was necessary to train personnel, as I said, for the military-industrial complex, engineers, engineers, qualified in the first place, were needed. Not just a person who would know how to work at the machine, but a person who would understand how it all works. And the subjective reasons were that insofar as the humanitarian sphere was completely ideologized and there was no space for scientific thought, as such, there was nowhere to turn around in the humanitarian sphere, everything was banned. Therefore, the person who wanted to be relatively free to engage in precisely science could afford to do this in the field of mathematics, in the field of physics - in the field of exact sciences. And it is characteristic that the future philosophers of logic came mainly from Soviet mathematical schools. And if we take the humanitarian sphere, a classic example is our philosopher Alexei Fedorovich Losev, who was forbidden to engage in philosophy, and he was engaged in aesthetics under the guise of philosophy, although he practically did the same.

For the exact sciences, physical and mathematical, the Soviet education was really very good. But the fact is that when in 1943 Soviet troops began to push the Germans to the borders of the Soviet Union and new cities and villages were liberated, the question arose of who would restore all this. Of course, the choice was made in favor of high school students and future students of technical vocational schools. But it turned out that the level of literacy of these people is at the lowest level, they cannot even enter a technical school for the first year, the level of education was so low.

In the future, a gradual increase in the level of education began to take place. First, a mandatory seven-year plan, then an eight-year plan from 1958, a ten-year plan from 1964, and an eleven-year plan from 1984. What this led to - it led to the fact that those losers who could previously go to work, or, say, to a factory, or to a factory school, get some kind of education there, without breaking away from practice and become a good worker, or simply could leave to work immediately, without raising their educational level, now they were forced to stay at school. And those who could not be fused to vocational schools were forced to stay at school and teachers had to do something about it. Moreover, since this was all done spontaneously and our educational level was rising rapidly, that is, yesterday, very a large number of teachers did not have time to master this elevated level, that is, to take refresher courses, to understand what is required of them.

And so a very ugly situation turned out - what we call culling, when most of students could not go anywhere and the formalization of education, when the teacher pretended that he was teaching, the children pretended that they were studying in order to reach the end of the school, draw triples and release them with the world into a greater life. And the result was a situation of segregation, when universities, on average, in the 1960s and 1970s, 20-30% of school graduates entered universities. The remaining 70-80% were rejected, they did not go anywhere, they went to production, but those 20% that did get good academic education at school, they could get it and wanted to. They then received a very good education in universities and then made glory to Soviet science, primarily to fundamental physical and mathematical science. They will then launch rockets into space and so on. But the remaining 80% were left out and not taken into account, and the literacy rate among them was very low. That is, they knew how to read, write, count, and in general, after that they immediately went to production.

For the most part, Soviet schoolchildren had a fairly good set of fragmentary knowledge in subjects, but, firstly, they did not know how to apply this knowledge in life, and secondly, they had no idea how to transfer knowledge from one subject area to another. A classic example with mathematics and physics - any physics teacher knew that if physics sinks, most likely it is necessary to look for problems in mathematics. But it was more problematic for other subjects, such as chemistry and biology, or history and literature. And most importantly, when they talk about the best educational system in the Soviet Union, they forget that practically no one copied this system. We now know the best educational systems in the world - in Finland, in Singapore, people from all over the world aspire to go there. This system is in demand, it is bought for a lot of money. Nobody bought the Soviet system, and even for free, by and large, nobody needed it. The diploma of a graduate of an average Soviet university was not quoted anywhere in Europe and in the world. Now I'm not talking about those bright minds who went abroad and then received good money, first of all, these are again physicists and mathematicians, someone could even become a Nobel laureate. But the question is how much the education system itself has invested in these people, how much it is from the system and how much it is a result from them, from these outstanding people.

Recently, many people often ask themselves questions: why do we have such a low level of education and why many graduates cannot answer even the most simple questions from the curriculum? What did they do with the previous education system after the collapse of the USSR? AT Soviet years the personnel training of future specialists was fundamentally different from that which today reigned throughout the entire post-Soviet space. But the Soviet education system has always been competitive. Thanks to her, the USSR came out in the 1960s on the first lines in the ranking of the most educated countries in the world. The country occupied a leading position in terms of the demand for its people, whose knowledge, experience and skills are for the benefit of home country have always been appreciated. What were they like, Soviet science and Soviet education, if cadres really should decide everything? On the eve of the new academic year, let's talk about the pros and cons of the Soviet education system, about how the Soviet school shaped a person's personality.

"To master science, to forge new cadres of Bolsheviks - specialists in all branches of knowledge, to study, study, study in the most stubborn way - this is now the task" (I.V. Stalin, Speech at the VIII Congress of the Komsomol, 1928)

More than once different people they interpreted the words of Bismarck in their own way, who, regarding the victory in the Battle of Sadovaya in 1866 in the war of Prussia against Austria, said that it was won by the Prussian folk teacher. It meant that the soldiers and officers Prussian army at that time they were better educated than the soldiers and officers of the enemy army. Paraphrasing it, US President J.F. Kennedy, on October 4, 1957, on the day the USSR launched the first artificial satellite of the Earth, said:

“We lost space to the Russians at the school desk.” The Soviet school prepared great amount young people who were able to master complex military equipment in the shortest possible time, were able to a short time pass accelerated courses in military schools and become well-trained commanders of the Red Army and patriots of their socialist Fatherland.

The West has repeatedly noted the successes and achievements of Soviet education, especially in the late 1950s.

NATO policy brief on education in the USSR (1959)

In May 1959, Dr. C.R.S. (C.R.S. Congressional Research Service - Research Service of the US Congress) Manders prepared a report for the NATO Science Committee on the topic "Scientific and technical education and personnel reserves in the USSR." The following are excerpts from this report, the notes in square brackets are ours.

“When the Soviet Union was formed a little over 40 years ago, the state had to face enormous difficulties. The crops of the Soviet south were destroyed by a locust invasion, resulting in food shortages and low morale population [note - not a word about the so-called "Holodomor"]. Nothing contributed to the defense, except rational use territorial and climatic conditions. The state lagged behind in education and other social spheres, illiteracy was widespread, and after almost 10 years [and this is 1929] Soviet magazines and printed editions still reported the same literacy rate. Forty years ago, there was a hopelessly lack of trained personnel to lead the Soviet people out of difficult situation, and today the USSR disputes the US right to world domination. This is an achievement that knows no equal in modern history ... ".

“Over the years, a significant proportion of trained personnel has returned to the education system to train even more specialists. Teaching is a well-paid and prestigious occupation. The net annual increase in trained personnel is 7% in the USSR (for comparison, in the USA - 3.5%, in Great Britain 2.5 - 3%).

“With each new stage of scientific and technological progress, a corresponding teacher training program begins. Since 1955 in the Moscow state university train programming teachers.

“At the level of postgraduate education, the USSR does not experience a shortage of professionals capable of managing government projects. In higher and school education, everything points to the fact that the number of professionally trained graduates will not only easily remain at the same level, but can be increased.”

"Western experts tend to be jealous of the quantity and quality of equipment in Soviet educational institutions."

“There is a significant tendency in the West to take extreme views on the Soviet Union. Its citizens, however, are not supermen or second-rate material. In fact, these are people with the same abilities and emotions as everyone else. If 210 million people in the West work together with the same priorities and the same zeal as their counterparts in the Soviet Union, they will achieve similar results. States that compete on their own with the USSR are wasting their strength and resources in attempts that are doomed to failure. If it is not possible to constantly invent methods that are superior to those of the USSR, it is worth seriously considering borrowing and adapting Soviet methods.

And here's another opinion. Western politician and a businessman about Stalin's policy:

“Communism under Stalin won the applause and admiration of all Western nations. Communism under Stalin gave us an example of patriotism, which is difficult to find an analogy in history. Persecution of Christians? No. There is no religious persecution. Church doors are open. Political repression? Oh sure. But now it is already clear that those who were shot would have betrayed Russia to the Germans.”

Now we can say with confidence that education in the USSR was at highest level, which is confirmed by the conclusion of Western analysts. It, of course, in many ways did not meet international standards. But now we are well aware that this is a problem of "standards". For now we have the very world standards. Only now, the most capable representatives of our youth, trained in accordance with these standards, by our Soviet standards, do not pull on the literate at all. So-so ... solid C students. Therefore, there is no doubt that the matter is not in ministers Fursenko or Livanov, that the modern problem lies purely in the system itself.

What was the Soviet system of education, which was so respectfully spoken about in the West, and whose methods were borrowed both in Japan and other countries?

Until now, there are disputes about whether the education system in the USSR can really be considered the best in the world. Someone agrees with confidence, and someone talks about the detrimental effect of ideological principles. Without a doubt, propaganda existed, but thanks to propaganda, illiteracy of the population was eliminated in record time, education became public, and so many Nobel laureates and winners of international Olympiads, as there were annually in Soviet times, were not until now. Soviet schoolchildren won international olympiads, including the natural sciences. And all these achievements arose despite the fact that general education in the USSR was established later than in Western countries for almost a whole century. The well-known innovative teacher Viktor Shatalov (born in 1927) said:

"AT post-war years in the USSR, the space industry arose, the defense industry rose. All this could not grow out of nothing. Everything was based on education. Therefore, it can be argued that our education was not bad.”

There were indeed many positives. Let's not talk about the mass character and accessibility of the school level of education: today this principle is preserved. Let's talk about the quality of education: people like to compare this property of the Soviet past with the quality of education in modern society.

Availability and inclusiveness

One of the most significant advantages of the Soviet school system was its accessibility. This right was enshrined constitutionally (Article 45 of the Constitution of the USSR of 1977). The main difference between the Soviet education system and the American or British one was the unity and consistency of all parts of education. A clear vertical system (initial, high school, technical school, university, graduate school, doctoral studies) allowed me to accurately plan the vector of my education. Uniform programs and requirements were developed for each stage. When parents moved or changed schools for any other reason, there was no need to re-learn the material or try to understand the system adopted in the new educational institution. The maximum trouble that a transition to another school could bring was the need to repeat or catch up with 3-4 topics in each discipline. Textbooks in the school library were issued free of charge and were available to absolutely everyone.

It is a mistake to assume that in the Soviet school all students had the same level of knowledge. Undoubtedly, general program must be adopted by all. But if a teenager is interested in some particular subject, then he was given every opportunity to study it additionally. At schools there were mathematical circles, circles of lovers of literature, and so on.

However, there were both specialized classes and specialized schools, where children got the opportunity to study certain subjects in depth, which was a reason for special pride of the parents of children who studied at a mathematical school or a school with a language bias. This brought up in parents and children a sense of their own exclusivity, "elitism." It was these children who in many ways became the "ideological backbone" of the dissident movement. Moreover, even in ordinary schools by the end of the 1970s, the practice of hidden segregation had developed, when the most talented children fall into the "A" and "B" classes, and the "D" class is a kind of "sump", which practice in today's schools is already considered the norm.

Fundamentality and versatility of knowledge

Despite the fact that a powerful number of leading subjects stood out in the Soviet school, among which were the Russian language, biology, physics, mathematics - the study of disciplines that give system view about the world, was a must. As a result, the student left the school bench, having almost encyclopedic knowledge. This knowledge became that strong foundation on which it was possible to subsequently educate a specialist in almost any profile.

pledge quality education there was a synchronization of the acquired knowledge on various subjects through ideology. Facts, recognizable by students in physics lessons, echoed the information obtained in the study of chemistry and mathematics, and were linked through the ideas dominant in society. Thus, new concepts and terms were introduced in parallel, which helped to structure knowledge and form in children a complete picture of the world, albeit an ideological one.

The presence of incentive and involvement in the educational process

Today, teachers are sounding the alarm: schoolchildren lack motivation to study, many high school students do not feel responsible for their own future. In Soviet times, it was possible to create motivation due to the interaction of several factors:

• Grades in the subjects corresponded to the acquired knowledge. In the USSR, they were not afraid to put deuces and triples even in a year. Class statistics certainly played a role, but were not of paramount importance. A loser could be left for the second year: it was not only a shame in front of other children, but also a powerful incentive to take up studies. You couldn’t buy a grade: you had to study, because there was another way to earn excellent result was impossible.
• The system of patronage and guardianship in the USSR was an indisputable advantage. A weak student was not left alone with his problems and failures. The excellent student took him under his care and studied until the loser achieved success. It was also for strong children good school: in order to explain the subject to another student, they had to work out the material in detail, independently learn to apply optimal pedagogical methods. The system of patronage (or, rather, helping the elders to the younger ones) brought up many Soviet scientists and teachers, who later became laureates of prestigious international awards.
• Equal conditions for all. The social status and financial situation of the student's parents had no effect on the results at school. All children were in equal conditions, studied according to one program, so the road was open to everyone. school knowledge was enough to enter the university without hiring tutors. Compulsory distribution after graduation, although perceived as an undesirable phenomenon, guaranteed work and the demand for acquired knowledge and skills. After the 1953 coup d'état, this situation began to slowly change, and by the 1970s, the children of the partocracy became more "equal" - "those who are more equal" received seats in the best establishments, many physical, mathematical, language schools thus began to degenerate into "elitist", from where it was no longer possible to simply remove a negligent student, since his dad was a "big man".

• The emphasis is not only on education, but also on education. The Soviet school covered the student's free time, was interested in his hobbies. Sections, extracurricular activities, which were mandatory, left almost no time for aimless pastime and generated interest in further education in different areas.
• Availability of free extracurricular activities. In the Soviet school, in addition to the compulsory program, electives were regularly held for those who wished. Classes in additional disciplines were free of charge and available to anyone who had the time and interest to study them.
• Material support for students - scholarships accounted for almost a third of the country's average salary.

The combination of these factors gave rise to a huge incentive to study, without which Soviet education would not have been so effective.

Requirements for teachers and respect for the profession

A teacher in a Soviet school is an image with a high social status. Teachers were respected and treated as a valuable and socially significant work. Films were made about the school, songs were composed, presenting teachers in them as intelligent, honest and highly moral people who should be emulated.

Being a teacher was considered an honor

There were reasons for this. High demands were placed on the personality of a teacher in the Soviet school. The teachers were people who graduated from universities and had an inner calling to teach children.

This situation continued until the 1970s. Teachers had relatively high salaries even compared to skilled workers. But closer to the "perestroika" the situation began to change. The development of capitalist relations. The focus on material values, which have now become achievable, has made the profession of a teacher unprofitable and unprestigious, which led to the leveling of the true value of school grades.

So, Soviet education was based on three main "pillars":

• encyclopedic knowledge achieved through versatile learning and synchronization of information obtained as a result of the study various items, albeit through ideology;
• the presence of a powerful incentive for children to study, thanks to the patronage of the elders over the younger ones and free extracurricular activities;
• respect for the work of teachers and the institution of the school as a whole.

Looking at the Soviet education system from the "bell tower" of modernity, some shortcomings can be noted. We can say that they are something like a brick that we, many years later, could add to the temple of science built by the country.

Let's look at some flaws that are better seen from a distance.

Emphasis on theory rather than practice

A. Raikin's famous phrase: "Forget everything you were taught at school, and listen ..." was not born from scratch. Behind it lies an intensified study of theory and the lack of connections between the acquired knowledge and life.

If we talk about the system of universal compulsory education in the USSR, then it surpassed the education systems of foreign countries (and, above all, developed capitalist ones) in terms of the breadth of the thematic spectrum and the depth of study of subjects (especially mathematics, physics, chemistry, and other branches of natural science). Based on secondary education High Quality(by world standards of that era), the universities of the USSR gave students not directly applied knowledge, but mostly knowledge of a fundamental nature, from which all directly applied knowledge and skills stem. But Soviet universities were also characterized by common vice Western-style education system, characteristic of it since the second half of the 19th century

Lack of "industry philosophies"

A common defect of the Soviet and Western education systems is the loss of the canons of professional activity: therefore, what can be called the “philosophy of design and production” of certain technospheric objects, the “philosophy of operation” of certain devices, the “philosophy of healthcare and the provision of medical care” and etc. applied philosophies were not in the curricula of Soviet universities. The available courses called “Introduction to the specialty” for the most part did not cover the problems of this kind of philosophy, and, as practice shows, only a few of the entire mass of university graduates were able to independently reach its understanding, and then only many years after receiving diplomas.

But their understanding of this issue in the vast majority of cases did not find expression in public (at least among professionals) texts:

• partly because the few who understood this problem were mostly busy with their professional work and did not find time to write a book (textbook for students);
• but among those who understood, there were also those who consciously maintained their monopoly on knowledge and related skills, since such a monopoly underlay their high status in the social hierarchy, in the hierarchy of the corresponding professional community and ensured this or that informal power;
• and partly because this genre of “abstract literature” was not in demand by publishing houses, especially since this kind of “philosophy of work” could largely contradict the ideological guidelines of the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the stupidity of bureaucrats-leaders higher in the hierarchy of power (in the professional sphere) .

In addition, those who were able to write this kind of book, for the most part, did not occupy high leadership positions, as a result of which they were not always “according to rank” to write on such topics in the conditions of the tribal system of the post-Stalin USSR. And those who were “according to rank” in post-Stalin times were mostly careerist bureaucrats who were not able to write such vital books. Although bureaucratic authors sometimes published books that purported to fill this gap, they were essentially scribbled.

An example of this kind of graphomania is the book of the Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy from 1956 to 1985, S.G. Gorshkov (1910 - 1988) "Sea Power of the State" (Moscow: Military Publishing. 1976 - 60,000 copies, 2nd supplemented edition 1979 - 60,000 copies). Judging by its text, it was written by a team of narrow specialists (submariners, surface sailors, aviators, gunsmiths and representatives of other branches of the forces and services of the fleet), who did not perceive the development of the Fleet as a whole as the construction of a complex system designed to solve certain problems, in which all elements should be presented in required quantities and interrelations of the functions assigned to each of them; a system that interacts with other systems generated by society and with the natural environment.

S.G. Gorshkov himself is unlikely to have read "his" book, and if he did read it, due to the dementia of a careerist, he did not understand the inconsistency of life and the mutual incompatibility of many of the provisions expressed in it by the authors of various sections.

Before understanding the problems of the development of the country's naval power, expressed in the works of Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union I.S. Isakov (1894 - 1967), S.G. Gorshkov was very far away, which had an extremely harmful effect on the defense capability of the USSR and the development of its Navy during those 30 years when S.G. Gorshkov headed the Soviet Navy.

Those who are prejudiced that under the leadership of S.G. Gorshkov, a mighty fleet was built, we must understand that every fleet is a collection of ships, coastal forces and services, but not every collection of ships, coastal forces and services, even with their large number and diversity, is really a Fleet. The latter took place in the USSR, when S.G. was the commander-in-chief of the Navy. Gorshkov, and it was very ruinous for the country and not very effective militarily.

Non-interference in the technical issues of the ideological bureaucracy

“How could it happen that sabotage has assumed such wide dimensions? Who is to blame for this? We are to blame for this. If we had put the matter of managing the economy differently, if we had gone over much earlier to the study of the technique of business, to mastering the technique, if we had intervened more often and sensibly in the management of the economy, pests would not have succeeded in doing so much harm.
We must ourselves become specialists, masters of the business, we must turn our faces to technical knowledge—this is where life pushed us. But neither the first signal nor even the second signal provided the necessary turn. It's time, it's time to turn to technology. It is time to cast aside the old slogan, the obsolete slogan of non-intervention in technology, and become specialists themselves, experts in the business, become the full masters of economic affairs.

The slogan about non-interference in technical issues in the practice of management during the civil war and the 1920s meant that "politically ideological", but illiterate and not tech-savvy and technology, a person could be put in charge, resulting in "politically immature" and potentially counter-revolutionary professionals under his leadership. Further, such a leader set before the professionals subordinate to him the tasks that the higher leaders set for him, and his subordinates, in turn, relying on their knowledge and professional skills, had to ensure their solution. Those. the first stages of the full function of enterprise management (or a structure for another purpose) turned out to be behind the "politically ideological" but not knowledgeable leader, and the subsequent stages were behind the professionals subordinate to him.

• If the head of the team and the professionals were conscientious or at least honest, and as a result, ethically compatible in the common cause, then in this version the enterprise management system was efficient and benefited both parties: the head learned the business, subordinate professionals broadened their horizons, were drawn into political life and became citizens of the USSR (in the sense of the word "citizen", understandable from the poem by N.A. Nekrasov "The Poet and the Citizen") de facto, and not just de jure.
• If the manager or professionals turned out to be ethically incompatible due to the dishonesty and dishonesty of at least one of the parties (at least the "ideological" leader, even professionals), then the enterprise management system to a greater or lesser extent lost its efficiency, which entailed consequences that could legally qualify as wrecking either a leader, or professionals, or all together (such an article was in the criminal codes of all union republics).

How such a system worked in practice in military affairs, see the story of the writer-marine painter, and earlier - a professional naval sailor L.S. Sobolev (1898 - 1971, was non-partisan) "Exam". In this story, the "spirit of the era" is presented accurately in many aspects, but from the point of view of liberals - slanderously. However, the same “spirit of the era” was also “in civilian life”, therefore, the system “political and ideological leader - subordinate professional specialists, apolitical and unprincipled” (such as Professor Nikolai Stepanovich from A.P. Chekhov’s story “The Boring History”) also worked in civilian life.

In fact, I.V. Stalin, in the quoted speech, set the task: since one “ideological conviction in the rightness of socialism” is not enough for business leaders, their ideological conviction should be practically expressed in mastering the relevant technical knowledge and applying this knowledge to identify and solve problems of economic support for politics Soviet state in all its components: global, external, internal; otherwise, they are hypocrites, covering up real sabotage with their "ideological conviction" - idle talk.
And now let's turn to the speech of I.V. Stalin "New situation - new tasks of economic construction" at a meeting of business executives on June 23, 1931 (highlights in bold are ours):

“... we can no longer get by with the minimum engineering, technical and command forces of industry that we used to get by with before. It follows from this that the old centers for the formation of engineering and technical forces are no longer enough, that it is necessary to create a whole network of new centers - in the Urals, in Siberia, in Central Asia. We must now provide ourselves three times, five times as much with engineering, technical and command forces of industry if we really think to carry out the program of socialist industrialization of the USSR.
But we do not need any command and engineering forces. We need such commanding and engineering-technical forces that are able to understand the policy of the working class of our country, are able to assimilate this policy and are ready to implement it. honestly» .

At the same time, I.V. Stalin did not recognize for the party and its members a monopoly on the possession of conscience and business qualities. In the same speech, there is the following passage:

“Some comrades think that only Party comrades can be promoted to leading positions in factories. On this basis, they often wipe out capable and enterprising non-Party comrades, pushing Party members to the forefront, although they are less able and uninitiative. Needless to say, there is nothing more stupid and reactionary than such, so to speak, "politics". It hardly needs proof that such a "policy" can only discredit the Party and alienate the non-Party workers from the Party. Our policy is not at all to turn the Party into a closed caste. Our policy is to create an atmosphere of "mutual trust" between Party and non-Party workers, an atmosphere of "mutual verification" (Lenin). Our Party is strong in the working class, among other things, because it is pursuing precisely such a policy.”

In post-Stalin times, if we refer to this fragment, the personnel policy was stupid and reactionary, and it was as a result of it that M.S. Gorbachev, A.N. Yakovlev, B.N. Yeltsin, V.S. Chernomyrdin, A.A. Sobchak, G.Kh. Popov and other activists of perestroika are reformers and unable to put them in the place of V.S. Pavlov, E.K. Ligachev, N.V. Ryzhkov and many other "opponents of perestroika" and bourgeois-liberal reforms.

The mention of conscience as the basis of the activity of every person, and above all - managers - in the conditions of building socialism and communism contrasts with the statement of another politician of that era.

“I free man,” says Hitler, “from the humiliating chimera called conscience. Conscience, like education, cripples a person. I have the advantage that no considerations of a theoretical or moral nature hold me back.

The quotation itself from the report of I.V. Stalin at the solemn meeting of the Moscow Council of Working People's Deputies on November 6, 1941, dedicated to the 24th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution.
But A. Hitler is not an innovator in the denial of conscience. Nietzsche

“Have I ever felt remorse? My memory keeps silent on this matter” (T. 1. S. 722, “Evil Wisdom”, 10).

“Remorse of conscience is the same stupidity as a dog’s attempt to gnaw a stone” (Ibid., p. 817, “The Wanderer and His Shadow”, 38)”

As a result, F. Nietzsche ended his life in a madhouse.

Communism, translated from Latin into Russian, means community, community; Besides, in Latin this word has the same root as “communication”, i.e. with communication, including information communication between people and not only between them, and the root of the word "conscience" is the same "communication" - "message". In other words:

"Communism- a community of people based on conscience: everything else in communism is a consequence of the unity of conscience in different people.

Low level of teaching foreign languages

The lack of experience in communicating with native speakers gave rise to the study of languages ​​​​based on stamps that did not change in textbooks from year to year. After 6 years of studying a foreign language, Soviet schoolchildren could not speak it even within the limits of everyday topics, although they knew grammar very well. The inaccessibility of educational foreign literature, audio and video recordings, the lack of the need to communicate with foreigners relegated the study of foreign languages ​​to the background.

Lack of wide access to foreign literature

The Iron Curtain created a situation in which it became not only shameful, but also dangerous to refer to foreign scientists in student and academic papers. The lack of fresh information has given rise to some conservation of teaching methods. In this regard, in 1992, when Western sources became available, the school system seemed outdated and in need of reform.

Lack of home education and external studies

It is difficult to judge whether this is good or bad, but the lack of opportunity for strong students to take subjects externally and move to the next class hindered the development of future advanced personnel, equalized them with the bulk of schoolchildren.

Non-alternative co-education of boys and girls

One of the dubious Soviet innovations in education was the compulsory joint education of boys and girls instead of pre-revolutionary separate education. At that time, this step was justified by the struggle for women's rights, the lack of staff and facilities for the organization of separate schools, as well as the widespread practice of co-education in some of the leading countries of the world, including the United States. However, the latest research in the United States shows that separate education improves student outcomes by 10-20%. Everything is quite simple: in joint schools, boys and girls are distracted by each other, there are noticeably more conflicts and incidents; boys, up to the last grades of school, lag behind girls of the same age in learning, since the male body develops more slowly. On the contrary, with separate education, it becomes possible to better take into account the behavioral and cognitive characteristics of different sexes to improve performance, self-esteem of adolescents is more dependent on academic performance, and not on some other things. Interestingly, in 1943, separate education for boys and girls was introduced in the cities, which, after the death of Stalin, was again eliminated in 1954.

Degradation of the system of secondary vocational education in the late USSR

Although in the USSR people of labor were extolled in every way and working professions were promoted, in the 1970s the system of secondary vocational education in the country began to clearly degrade, even despite the noticeable advantage that young workers had in terms of wages. The fact is that in the USSR they tried to ensure universal employment, and therefore, in vocational schools, they en masse took those who did not enter universities with two or three students, and also forcibly placed juvenile criminals there. As a result, the average quality of the student population in vocational schools has fallen sharply. Besides, career prospects The vocational schools were much worse than in the previous era: a huge number of skilled workers were trained during the industrialization of the 1930-1960s, the best places were filled, and it became more difficult for young people to break through to the top. At the same time, the service sector was extremely underdeveloped in the USSR, which was associated with a serious limitation of entrepreneurship, and it is the service sector that creates the largest number of jobs in modern developed countries (including jobs for people without higher or vocational education). Thus, there were no alternatives in employment, as there are now. Cultural and educational work in vocational schools turned out to be poorly organized, students "vocational schools" began to be associated with hooliganism, drunkenness and general low level development. “If you study poorly at school, you will go to vocational school!” (vocational technical school) - something like this parents said to negligent schoolchildren. The negative image of vocational education in working specialties persists in Russia to this day, although qualified turners, locksmiths, millers, plumbers are now among the highly paid professions, whose representatives are in short supply.

Perhaps the time will come, and we will return to the experience of the USSR, having mastered it positive sides taking into account the modern requirements of society, that is, at a new level.

Conclusion

Analyzing the current culture of our society as a whole, we can come to the conclusion that the societies that have historically developed on earth give rise to three levels of unfreedom for people.

Level one

There are people who have mastered a certain minimum of commonly used socially significant knowledge and skills, who are not able to independently master (based on literature and other sources of information) and produce new knowledge and skills from scratch. Such people are able to work only in professions that do not require any specialized qualifications, or in mass professions that can be mastered without much labor and time on the basis of a universal educational minimum.

They are the most unfree, because they practically do not have free time and are not able to enter other areas of activity except those that they have mastered in one way or another and in which they ended up, perhaps not of their own free will.

Level two

Those who have mastered the knowledge and skills of “prestigious” professions, in which relatively short employment (everyday or occasional) provides a sufficiently high income, which allows them to have a certain amount of free time and dispose of it at their discretion. Most of them also do not know how to independently master and produce new knowledge and skills from scratch, especially outside the sphere of their professional activity. Therefore, their lack of freedom begins when the profession they have mastered depreciates, and they, unable to quickly master any other sufficiently highly profitable profession, slide into the first group.

At this level, in the cultures of most civilized societies, individuals are given access to the knowledge and skills that enable them to enter the realm of governance of general public importance while remaining conceptually powerless. The term "conceptual power" should be understood in two ways: firstly, as the kind of power that gives society the concept of its life in the continuity of generations as a single whole (i.e., determines the goals of society's existence, ways and means to achieve them); secondly, as the power of the concept itself over society.

Level three

Those who are able to independently master previously developed and produce from scratch new knowledge and skills of social significance as a whole for them and society and exploit them on a commercial or any other social status basis. Their lack of freedom begins when they, without thinking about the objectivity of Good and Evil, about the difference in their meaning, fall consciously or unconsciously into permissiveness and begin to create objectively unacceptable Evil, as a result of which they encounter a stream of circumstances that restrain their activity of certain circumstances beyond their control — up to the deadly. These factors can be both intrasocial and general natural, and can have a personal or wider scale, up to the global one.

Access to this level is due to the development of managerial knowledge and skills, including those that are necessary for gaining and exercising conceptual power. In the conditions of societies in which the population is divided into the common people and the ruling "elite", in which an even narrower social group is reproduced from generation to generation, carrying one or another internal closed tradition of governance, access to this level is blocked by the system of both universal and " elite" education. Access to it is possible either arbitrarily (rare self-taught people are capable of this), or due to belonging to certain clans of those who carry the internal traditions of governing or electing an individual by these clans to include him in their ranks. This blocking is not of a spontaneous natural nature, but is a purposefully built system-forming cultural factor, the action of which is expressed in the protection of their monopoly on the conceptual power of certain clan groups, which allows them to exploit the rest - managerially incompetent - society in their own interests.

Level of gaining freedom

The level of gaining freedom is the only one: a person, acting according to his conscience, realizes the objective difference between Good and Evil, their meaning, and on this basis, taking the side of Good, acquires the ability to master independently and produce “from scratch” new knowledge and skills for him and society in advance or at the pace of development of the situation. For this reason, it gains independence from corporations that have monopolized certain social meaningful knowledge and skills on which the social status of their representatives is based. Note that in the religious worldview, conscience is an innate religious feeling of a person, “connected” to his unconscious levels of the psyche; on its basis, a dialogue between man and God is built, if a person does not deviate from this dialogue himself, and in this dialogue God gives everyone the proof of His existence in full accordance with the principle "practice is the criterion of truth." It is for this reason that conscience in the religious worldview is a means of distinguishing between objective Good and Evil in the specifics of the incessantly current life of society, and a kind person- a man living under the dictatorship of conscience.

In an atheistic worldview, the nature and source of conscience are not cognizable, although the fact of its activity in the psyche of many people is recognized by some schools of atheistic psychology. One can speak of conscience and freedom in the indicated sense as a self-evident fact, without going into a discussion of theological traditions of historically developed conceptions of religion, if the circumstances do not favor this; or if you have to explain this problem to atheist-materialists, for whom the appeal to theological questions is a well-known sign of the inadequacy of the interlocutor, or to atheist-idealists, for whom the disagreement of the interlocutor with their accepted religious tradition is a well-known sign of obsession and Satanism.

In accordance with this task, non-economic and non-military-technical in its essence, the task of changing the current concept of globalization to the righteous concept of the system universal compulsory and professionally specialized education in the country was oriented under the guidance of I.V. Stalin, so that everyone who is able and willing to learn acquire knowledge that allows them to reach at least the third level of unfreedom, including the acquisition of conceptual power.

Although the gradation of levels of unfreedom shown above and the phenomenon of conceptual power in the era of I.V. Stalin was not realized, however, it was precisely about this that he wrote directly in the terminology of that era, and this can be clearly understood from his words:

“It is necessary ... to achieve such a cultural growth of society as to ensure to all members of society the comprehensive development of their physical and mental abilities, so that members of society have the opportunity to receive an education sufficient to become active workers community development…» .

“It would be wrong to think that such a serious cultural growth of the members of society can be achieved without serious changes in the current state of labor. To do this, it is necessary first of all to reduce the working day to at least 6, and then to 5 hours. This is to ensure that members of the society have enough free time to receive a comprehensive education. For this, it is necessary, further, to introduce compulsory polytechnic education, which is necessary for the members of society to have the opportunity to freely choose a profession and not be chained for life to any one profession. To this end, it is necessary to further radically improve living conditions and raise the real wages of workers and employees at least twice, if not more, both through a direct increase in money wages, and especially through a further systematic reduction in the prices of consumer goods.
These are the basic conditions for preparing the transition to communism.”

Real democracy, which is based on the availability for mastering knowledge and skills that allow to carry out the full function of management in relation to society, is impossible without mastering the art of dialectics (as a practical cognitive and creative skill) by sufficiently wide layers in all social groups as the basis for developing conceptual power.

And accordingly, dialectical materialism was included in the USSR as the standard of both secondary (later becoming universal) and higher education, due to which a certain number of students in the process of getting to know "diamat" developed in themselves some kind of personal culture of dialectical knowledge and creativity, even with that the dialectic in "diamat" was crippled by G.W.F. Hegel: reduced to three "laws" and replaced by some kind of logic, in which form it was perceived by the classics of Marxism - K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin, L.D. Bronstein (Trotsky).

However, the education system of the USSR did not provide access to the level of freedom due to the totalitarian domination of Marxism, which distorted the worldview and brought it into conflict with conscience, which was also facilitated by the principle of “democratic centralism”, which underlay the internal discipline of the CPSU (b) - the CPSU, Komsomol and pioneer organization, the Soviet trade unions, which became a tool for subordinating the majority to the not always righteous will and, in fact, to the mafia discipline of the ruling minority.

But even with these vices, the education system in the USSR still did not prevent those who lived under the rule of the dictatorship of conscience and treated Marxism and the internal discipline of the party and public organizations controlled by the leadership of the party as a historically transient circumstance, and to conscience - as an enduring foundation, on which the essence and fate of every individual and every society is built.

And ensuring the effectiveness of the education system as a means of innovative development of the economy at a faster pace and economic support for the country's defense capability is a means of solving the above-mentioned I.V. Stalin of the main task: so that everyone can become active figures in social development.

If we talk about the development of the Russian education system in the future, then - on the basis of what has been said above - it can only be expressed in building a system of universal compulsory education that can bring the student to the only level of freedom in the previously defined sense and motivate everyone who has problems to achieve this result. with health do not interfere with mastering training programs.

At the same time, education (in the sense of providing access to the development of knowledge and skills and assistance in their development) without an alternative turns out to be associated with the upbringing of the younger generations, since access to the only level of freedom is not only the possession of certain knowledge and skills, but also the unconditional self-subordination of the will of the individual to her conscience, and this is the subject of the upbringing of each child personally, according to the specifics of the circumstances of his life.

Afterword

Soviet school teachers provided basic knowledge in their subjects. And they were quite enough for a school graduate to enter a higher educational institution on his own (without tutors and bribes). Nevertheless, Soviet education was considered fundamental. The general education level implied a broad outlook. There was not a single school graduate in the USSR who did not read Pushkin or did not know who Vasnetsov was.

In the end, I would like to give an essay by a Soviet schoolboy about the Motherland. Look! So our mothers and grandmothers knew how to write. 1960-70 years in the USSR... And this is written not with a ballpoint pen, but with a fountain pen!

We congratulate you all on the Day of Knowledge!