Russian Education in a New Light

 

The second seminar of the Russian-British Curriculum Development Project, which took place in March at the Institute of Education in London, included a remarkable contribution from Irena Zakharova, a teacher of English in a Moscow school. Irena speaks with a missionary zeal and her principles of pedagogy are causing a stir among her colleagues back home, indeed she was asked to tone down her article in the teachers’ journal (Uchitelskaya Gazeta) for fear of upsetting the traditionalists too much.

Irena came to Britain as one of the Mothers for Peace and met both American and British Quaker women. The experience had a profound effect on her and she has tried to translate the ideas they shared then into her professional life as a teacher. At the seminar she put her view that you could not teach international understanding in a classroom atmosphere which did not reflect respect for the individual worth of each pupil, where the teacher confronts and controls pupils, where pupils sit in rows and look at each other's backs, where there is no real communication and students can only speak when called to do so. She explained that the process of education is an imprint of the society we live in. If children are constrained and humiliated by teachers who show them no respect, they will grow up to copy that model and wish to be in a position to humiliate and constrain others. It is a pattern of military control.

The process Irena initiated in her own classes and has urged on her colleagues is not new. It is a return to the progressive or child-centred pedagogy which linked John Dewey in America with Anton Makarenko in the Soviet Russia of the 1920s. It is based on a pedagogy of co-operation where the learner shares in the responsibility for decisions in the learning process. The teacher does not impose her plan on the pupils who passively follow. Pupils discuss things with each other and with the teacher, learn to listen to each other and to respect the contribution of each. From what age? Right from the start!

The contribution from the other four members of the Russian delegation were equally exciting. Valery Pivovarov (from the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences), who has been associated with the project since its inception, now has the important position of vice-chairman of the curriculum review committee set up by the Minister of Education. He explained that the key themes are the development of personality, democratisation and creative thinking. School should not be preparation for life – life is education and school is a part of life. Anything that cannot be justified as a worthwhile process in itself must not be justified as preparation for life. There should be emphasis on universal human
values, a non-militaristic concept of patriotism and an end to the two-state thinking which polarises nations and people into friends and enemies.

We heard that the latest directive from the ministry instructs teachers and examiners always to respect the view of students and not to penalise them for views divergent from the accepted norm. Ludmilla Aleksashkina gave us an analysis of history teaching and concluded that the aim should be that each student can indeed have a unique view of history based on his or her interpretation of the evidence. Irena Kuzmicheva, a psychologist from Moscow University, gave us a model of teaching humanities which placed the emphasis on creative thinking and conflict resolution as well as multi-dimensional perspective which is always open to new paradigms (open to new light from whatever quarter it may arise?). Natasha Voskresenskaya emphasised the importance of a global perspective in all of education which recognised the centrality of ecology. A great deal has happened in Russian educational thinking (though somewhat less in practice) over the past year and it was heartening to hear our visitors acknowledge that our input at last year’s seminar in Moscow has influenced their thinking.

Tom Leimdorfet. The Friend. 1999

 

 

High-Stakes Games

 

Across the country, students, teachers and education officials are playing a game of chicken with testing regimes. In an effort to raise standards, both federal legislation – as embodied in the No Child Left Behind Act – and many state testing systems threaten to penalize students who can’t pass basic tests, along with the schools charged with educating them. After years of preparation, the dates for implementing these high-stakes graduation exams are coming up. Officials have warned that students who fall short won’t receive diplomas or, in some cases, promotion to the next grade level. But if thousands of students fail or look as if they might, will authorities blink?

The answer appears to be yes. Last month California postponed implementation of its high-stakes exam for two years. California’s 1999 legislation required that 2004’s high school seniors pass an exam to graduate. Yet as of January about a third of 2004 seniors had not passed the mathematics portion of California’s test, and nearly 20 per cent hadn’t passed the language arts section. These are students who have supposedly been working to meet standards since before they were in eighth grade.

And California is not alone. Of the states that promised a new regime of accountability, only a handful are on track to meet targets. Many states have made their tests easier. Others have lowered the passing score or delayed phasing them in as a graduation or promotion requirement. Some worry that this might happen in Maryland, where the State Board of Education has just set
standards that more than a third of the students who took math and reading tests this year would have failed. By contrast, Virginia is gearing up to enforce results of its tests on the class of 2004. Although some of the requirements have been changed – critics say "watered down" – since the launch of the program, the state should be commended for holding fast to the principle of statewide testing.

For Virginia is also proof that high-stakes testing might yield results. Student scores on Virginia's Standards of Learning tests have been improving on a number of fronts since the tests have been administered, and the gap between minority students and others has been narrowing. The proportion of schools meeting state standards in Virginia has risen from 2 per cent to 70 per cent since 1999, revealing a marked improvement in the curriculum.

Testing is never an end in itself but a measure of other factors – the commitment of teachers and of school districts, the willingness of students to work harder. But while a test can be a tool to inspire and an indicator of progress, it works only as long as education authorities take it seriously.

The Washington Post. 2003

 

 

5 Times More Fld. Kids to Repeat 3rd Grade

⇐ Предыдущая32333435363738394041Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: