The most noteworthy reform is "perestroika" (reconstruction) in the basic instructional program of high schools and principally in their history and social science courses. First, the reforms have affected the structure and principle of instruction. During the last 10 or more years a principle of instruction in the disciplines was accepted where, for example, an entire course of history (in the framework of the general, or more precisely, universal, full highschool education) was built up, so to speak, "from nothing until now" and was distributed over the whole course of the general 11-year curriculum, in which the majority of children were taught. During the last ten years, however, about half the children after the course of so-called basic school (nine years) left high school and continued their education in other institutions: trade schools, technical schools and courses, etc. And suddenly it became evident that at this point their social-humanitarian education ceased: for them, history ended at the 19th century and Russian literature at Nikolai Gogol, etc.
Content of the instructional programs
Not long ago the college for the ministry of education reconsidered the strategy of social-humanitarian education and also the structure of its programs. That is entirely logical, because courses about history and the social science disciplines "suffered" from the biggest and most radical changes--primarily in their content. Where will Russia go next? What will it be like? What kind of changes can be expected in such an unstable society? Of what sort are its structure, present state, trends of development, and prospects?
Quite understandably, stable courses and textbooks are to be created over the decades. But neither schools nor students can wait, while real life gives a full reply to their questions. One must prepare today tomorrow's citizens, isn't that so? For this reason, decisions are more or less provisional and will be valid only during a so-called transitional period, although the Ministry has worked out a strategy of "perestroika" (in social-humanitarian education) with faculty from the research institutions of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Education.
The main element of the strategy is the recognition that instruction of the disciplines from now on will be differentiated and varied. Instructors will now be able to work in an atmosphere of choice: he or she will now be able to choose for themselves from a significant quantity of textbooks and learning tools. Recent years have seen the appearance of many new textbooks, memory aids, chrestomathies with multifaceted collections of historical documents, etc. Even unusual aids have appeared--workbooks about the history of the ancient world, the middle ages and Russian history. Among the new learning tools and aids for instructors and grad students are things which, not too long ago, were not even imaginable. For example, "The History of the Soviet Union. 1917-1991" by the famous western expert Geoffry Hosking, which had already appeared in 11 editions in the US and Britain. A view from the outside, so to speak. Also appearing are various types of learning tools for so-called differentiated instruction. And in this mass of instructional material and literature, history appears as a complex, dramatic and zigzagging process.
And pedagogues, teachers, experts and historians are welcoming the variety of books, because (at least theoretically) a school has the aim of helping students to work out, to form, their own opinions about the present and the past of our country. Various kinds of tasks and problems out of the workbooks not only require that they know about dates, facts, events, etc, but also teach them to make comparisons on their own, to find causes and consequences of events.
Problems
Nevertheless this diversity of literature, having appeared almost immediately, has given rise to its own problems. Many high school teachers were not ready to make their own choices. Yet now teachers must indeed make conscious choices. Certainly, pluralism of opinion in society is a good thing. But, as one specialist remarked, pluralism within one head is either cynicism or confusion.
Personalities
In the past, our country's history has been mainly impersonal (besides, of course, V. Lenin, I. Stalin, L. Brezhnev, and other "eminent guides of the people"). But even a sketchy mention of such eminences narrows their circle without cause. Now the plan is to enrich the study of history with the biographies of people who are examples of social and cultural service: statesmen and educators, eminent scientists, specialists and artists, builders and industrialists, poets and authors, pioneers opening new territories, and people made heroes in the name of the good of society and the Fatherland.
Also, the patriotic component in the teaching of history in middle schools during recent years was muted. Society suffered a shock because of the torrent of truth about its past and today it is sick of it. Nevertheless it is impossible to educate future citizens by focusing on reading only the tragic pages of history and leading them into self-denial and self-apostasy. Under the conditions of an epochal turning point, history (and the social sciences as well) remains one of the chief subjects of learning, educating civic self-awareness, for a society not indifferent to whether people leave school for whom the Fatherland will be "our land," but not "this land."
"The object of learning history," the famous Russian historian Vasiliy Kluchevskiy (1841-1911) wrote in his notebook, "is that which does not pass, does not cease, as an inheritance, a lesson, an unfinished product, an eternal law. Studying the grandfather, we come to know the grandson, to know ourselves. Without knowledge of history, we are obliged to recognize ourselves as happenstance, not knowing how and for what we came into the world, how and for what we live in it, how and for what we must strive."
During this discussion it was noted that reforms cannot be put off. Nevertheless, as is self-evident, success of the elaborated strategy totally depends on the teachers. For this reason it has been decided to begin seriously teaching and re-teaching the teachers themselves. And history will show how successful this strategy has been and its practical realization.
Nikolai Stepanov, Moscow, Russia
nikst@glas.apc.org
English translation by:
Marvin Entz, Vancouver, Canada