Russian Education in a New Light

Supplementary Texts

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

Дата добавления: 2017-01-14