While still at school, I came across the 1947 film "Country Teacher". Then I did not really understand this film, although childhood was caught in the 90s. At school, we were taught by Soviet-trained teachers. The education was of high quality. I will never forget that at the university an English teacher praised me for my fundamental knowledge, although I studied in a completely different specialty. We do not know what will be useful in life, but the luggage that my teachers gave me was really priceless. The only trouble is that in addition to knowledge in the modern world, as well as a hundred years ago, a material component is needed, as in the film "Rural Teacher".
I only fully realized this film in 2006, when I myself entered the capital's university. The exams were passed, but someone had to pay for the “pass”. Unfortunately, and maybe fortunately, then we did not have that kind of money. And I went to enter a provincial university, and I entered with high scores. Studied on a budget. After the army, he went to work by profession.
I come from a family of educators. Working with different children, I noticed that they are all united by the fact that most of them have no future. You say, there is no future? Everyone has a future, but, unfortunately, it is not! Do we need a future in which we are just biomaterial or service staff? Maybe we just teach children at preschool age that someone will be a slave to someone. You will probably exclaim with censure: “No! You don’t need to do that, as you could think of something like that.” The most amazing thing is that it was not invented by me, it is already being widely introduced to children from a very early age under the name “financial literacy”.
Once I was at such an event, not of my own free will. And I was amazed, we were told that children need to be told about credits and loans with their mother's milk, they say, this is normal in the modern world. This is how children quickly adapt to today's realities. I immediately have a question: "What is this reality?" It reminds of Hitler's Germany, they also instilled a racial theory with the explanation that it was necessary. Then, we know how it ended in 1945, and how quickly the adored Fuhrer turned out to be useless to anyone with his theory.
Now I would like to go through the points with the current realities of the education system and try to compare what was the reality of the Lenin education system and Putin's.
I would like to present my analysis based on my personal experience from within the education system itself. You, of course, ask: "And where does the Soviet model of education?" Let me explain this aspect right away. The fact is that I myself was brought up by the Soviet model of education, both at school and at the university, and by the Soviet specialists themselves. Yes, there were attempts to introduce Soros books on history into schools, the compulsory study of religious studies, but since then Soviet principles were still strong among teachers, we were immunized. Unfortunately, the modern model of education is very complex and incomprehensible, but it has an exact result, which I will talk about later.
Let's break down two education systems in comparison:
1) That the Soviet, that the Russian model of education, the first point includes the equality of all citizens in receiving education
Promotional video:
This is a very interesting point. The fact is that the Soviet (Leninist model), in fact, gave equal rights in education. Any citizen of the country of Soviets received high-quality knowledge independently, he received this knowledge in the outback or in the metropolis. In addition to highly qualified specialists, even rural or village schools had an extensive inventory for the physical and mental development of students.
If we look into modern rural schools, we will be horrified. Some schools have no inventory at all. One teacher teaches several subjects, and even not being a specialist in these areas. So what do you think the result will be. And what is the equality of all citizens in education?
What has been written above applies to rural schools, but what happens to rural schools? And they are not. They are in a dilapidated state. Tens of thousands of schools have closed over the past 19 years. Even in the 90s this was not the case.
But what, really, loves to do power. She can give an answer to everything and turn the situation into the best perspective for her. Today the authorities are proud that with the help of buses the state takes care of remote children. And the state spends millions on this service. In fact, she hides the advantageous side for herself. The maintenance of the car fleet is much cheaper than the maintenance of a school in provincial settlements. The authorities are ready to bring the child tens of kilometers to school from the regional center just not to support the school.
And now the disadvantages of this service for students and parents:
a) The child needs to get up very early, which leads the body to stress and irritability
b) Sometimes, in order to reach the stop, you need to go through a dangerous long path at an unlit time of day.
c) the schedule of travel from home to school and back does not give the child a choice about extracurricular activities. He is not interested in extracurricular work, preparation for events, his main task is to catch the bus.
d) Arriving from school leads him to fatigue. And there is simply no further homework. After all, you need to get ready for bed in order to get up early tomorrow.
And the result, after the 9th grade, the student does not want further such "learning-torment". If it was possible to leave after grade 4, I think many would use this opportunity.
Conclusion: the Soviet model of education accessibility was carried out in practice, the Russian model is based on ostentatious optimization. And you need to be realistic. A provincial schoolchild cannot compete with an urban one. The saddest is the same inequality among cities. For example: a Ufa school or university cannot stand on a par with lyceums, schools and universities in Moscow.
2) Obligatory education
The Soviet model of education was mandatory, and it was due to the need of the state to obtain personnel in all areas. Moreover, the basic level of personnel was the same and of high quality. What does it mean? This means that the doctor was well versed in mechanics, construction, electricity, etc. The teacher could provide first aid, etc. Those. in addition to his direct duties, a person could adapt to any conditions, but when it comes to his professional skills, he showed the maximum result. And here are examples: the first flight into space, the exploration of the seas and oceans, the Lenin nuclear icebreaker, BAM, etc. Could a Soviet citizen have been able to do this if he had not received the required knowledge? I think no.
Today, all kinds of crazy methods do not exist. Their main goal: to powder the brains, to raise a person who does not know how and does not want anything. A child, coming to the first grade, tries to learn something, the whole world is interesting for him, but the teacher cannot give it to him. The task of the teacher today is not to give information, but to direct him there. They say that this is how the research interest of children is born. Now let's imagine a child who does not know anything, and they put him in front of the forest, where predatory animals say: Here is the forest, go there, you yourself must find out, scout. Doesn't this seem absurd to you? Yes, it is possible that there are humanistic principles in self-search, but at least the foundation must be laid for the child. The state does not want this, it lets everything go to chance, explaining this by the fact that we are crushing the child's personal freedom of choice.
3) The state and public nature of all public educational institutions
On May 30, 1918, the Council of People's Commissars adopted a decree, which stated: All teaching and educational affairs and institutions are transferred under the authority of the People's Commissariat of Education. So the end was put to the existence of private educational institutions. The state clearly gave tasks, allocated material resources, despite the fact that during these years there was a Civil War. Today Russia does not wage any wars, receives billions of dollars in revenues from natural resources and spends 3% on education and science.
The most derogatory thing is that the teaching profession has turned into the status of a flawed person. The teacher constantly needs to look for additional income. It has become fashionable in modern Russia - tutoring. The teacher, instead of giving quality knowledge at school, and then resting or spiritually enlightened, should look for additional material resources. Then it would be more logical to completely remove school education. After all, to be honest and honest, in most cases, school is a place for reports, window dressing and a time to spend. A student after school cannot apply knowledge, the teacher after school runs to tutoring. Head teachers close the incomprehensible reports that are required from teachers at school, the director reports to the department that there are so many percent of those who entered, so many medalists. Departments are accountable to officials. And at the end, Putin says in his annual address: Our students show high results. Listening to all this nonsense, Vasilyeva has facial paralysis. Everyone is happy, everyone is fine.
Well, but seriously. This education system has a clear result. The state needs service personnel. If earlier they blamed the Soviet country and said that the "totalitarian regime" needs an obedient screw, in fact today it is not even a screw that is needed, but lubrication. The cogs of today's Russia are officials and law enforcement agencies. The rest of the people for the state is biological waste. If it is possible to lubricate the cogs of this state, they pump out everything from this garbage, and if not, then it is not needed at all. Therefore, why spend money on him and in no case need to educate him. Everything in history is cyclical, like 150 years ago, they will soon introduce a “circular about cook's children”, perhaps it is already in effect … I am sure there are officials who speak in the words of the headmaster of the gymnasium from the film Village teacher:"Children of beggars will never sit at the same desk with children of aristocrats."
In drawing a conclusion, one must bow to the great leader of the world proletariat. He was, indeed, a man of a planetary scale. On the example of Lenin, even in backward states, people came to power and made financial assistance to education a priority. We don't have that. But what we really have is window dressing, such as Skolkovo, nano-Chubais, cartoons about missiles, etc. Previously, school and education was a social lift that made it possible to break out into people. Today even this elevator is deliberately broken by the state. But young people are trying, with all sorts of television projects: voice, stand-up, dances, songs, house-2 to get out in life. Even the children were hooked. Only people do not understand that behind all this touching show there is one scenario - to amuse and delight more successful people who will receive a high-quality education, medicine and profession. And you will be a servant.
In the end, according to tradition, I would like to quote the clever words of one respected person.
Eternal glory and memory to the great people of the 20th century and a deep bow to the founder of a great state and the great idea of a just society.
F. Valiev, village teacher
