Before discussing the changes made to education and the practises and principles introduced following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it is worth providing the reader with a brief summary of the state of Education prior to 1991. Before 1917, education was not free in the Russian Empire and proved inaccessible or barely accessible for many children from lower-class working and peasant families. Here, the state and status of education in Russia was described as deeply ‘educationally backward’ . This can be seen through statistics, which show that in 1915 the literacy rate of the entire Soviet Union was just shy of 32% and the majority of the population received only an elementary school education. Two years later in 1917, still prior to the revolution, Tsar Nicholas’s II could only boast that one of four children between the ages of seven and fourteen were literate . In February 1917, the absolutist rule of tsarism came to an end, allowing for an installation of a ‘provisional government consisting of men with a wide spectrum of political ideologies’ . Upon the shameful educational statistics, the deputies within the State Duma, or the legislature, had noticed that these must be improved if Russia was to advance at the same rate as Russia’s Western counterparts, ultimately producing a productive and enlightened nation.
Following these developments, Anatoly Lunacharskii became the first People's Commissar for Education of Soviet Russia. Within the Commissar, Soviet authorities placed great emphasis on the elimination of illiteracy and individuals who were literate were automatically hired as teachers. By 1940, Joseph Stalin could pronounce that illiteracy had been eliminated. Throughout the 1930s social mobility rose sharply, which has been accredited to Soviet reforms in education . Following on from the Great Patriotic War, the country's educational system expanded significantly. In the 1960s, nearly all-Soviet children had access to education, the only exception concerned those living in less accessible areas, such as Siberia. Nikita Khrushchev then intended to make education more accessible; making it clear to children that education was closely linked to the needs of society. Education also became important in giving rise to the New Man .
The country's system of education unveiled itself as highly centralized and universally accessible to all citizens, aided by affirmative action for applicants from nations associated with cultural backwardness. Implementations were also in place that meant that citizens directly entering the work force could claim it as their constitutional right to a job and to free vocational training. When the Brezhnev era set in, he introduced a rule that required all university applicants to present a reference from the local Komsomol party secretary. Upon this sentiment, statistics from 1986 reveal that the number of higher education students per the population of 10,000 was 181 for the USSR, compared to 517 for the U.S.
This research paper will follow education chronologically, highlighting how such a system indoctrinated in Marxist-Leninist theory was a major element of every school's curriculum, was then replaced, as education experienced a post communist overhaul. This paper will look at the process of public schools, where due to the nature of a communist society, the schools' additional ideological function left a legacy in the post-Soviet system that proved difficult for educators to overcome. In the 1990s, reform programs were developed with the purpose of overhauling the Soviet-era pedagogical philosophy and substantially revising curricula. Upon closer inspection, inadequate and unclear funding aggravated the realization of these goals, and generally teaching within Russian society proved to be disregarded, allowing endowed individuals to leave because of low pay.
Throughout the 1990s, Russia was faced with educational reform programs that concentrated on eliminating political ideology and moral education from the curriculum, so that the learning process is accustomed to the needs of a market-driven economy. During Soviet times, the government acted as a base for controlling and managing all schools in Russia. Hereby, such practices allowed for an ‘underlying philosophy’, where ‘the teacher’s job was to transmit standardized materials to the students, and the student’s job was to memorize those materials, all of which were put in the context of socialist ethnics’ . With this philosophy derived at the core of all educational developments, education in Russia became characterized by a system that relied on the primacy of the collective rather than of individual interests. However, such developments proved restrictive, summarized by a lack of creativity and individualism, of which were dejected. Historically, such a system was also able to incorporate Tsarist-style traditions, allowing for a five-point grading system, formal and regimented classroom environments, and standard school uniforms.
Arguably, calls to reform such a totalitarized educational system began in the 1980’s, where reform was targeted to introduce new curricula, textbooks and teaching methods. However, any calls for a ‘new school’ that would better equip Soviet citizens to deal with the modern, technologically advanced nation that Soviet leaders foresaw diminished, due to inadequate facilities, overcrowding and short supplies. Notably, the importance here is the fact that these concerns were realised so early, where the 1980’s also saw young Russians becoming cynical about the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, of which limited self-expression and individual responsibility. Once again, however, such calls were not yet realised, as the final years of the Soviet Union again were limited in terms of funding and any establishment of the ‘new schools’ were expelled, as ‘ideological purity continued to smother the new pedagogical creativity that was heralded in official pronouncements’ .
Upon examination of the reform era in the early 1990s, the Russian system of education reveals itself to of been ambitious in theory, however, also suffered from a number of reform setbacks, including financial difficulties, on-going conflict between regional and national interests, and conflicting views on the educational requirements of the modernity. Moreover, to consider why this was in fact true, aside the reform-based movements on from the Law of Education in 1992, this paper will now examine the role of the Ministry of Education and Government Reforms in Post-Soviet education. In doing so, a brief examination will reveal that one figure, namely, Edward Dneprov proves an important figure, whom was appointed to the position of Minister of Education in the RSFSR.
Dneprov’s key assignment was to introduce sweeping reforms that were to minimize the role of the central government, in other terms, decentralizing education so that local and regional authorities could garner their own levels of influence. Upon these ideas, Dneprov states “we have two principles that form the pillars of our policy: democratization and humanization” . Dneprov’s reforms highlighted the notion of a Soviet disconnect that was to be seen in both policy and practice stating “we have challenged this tradition by reversing the stages, so that we focus on what we wish to implement and then justify that without conceptual statement” . Such proclamations provided scarce structural guidance for local school systems and teachers attempting to transition from a Soviet to a post-Soviet classroom. Here, Yeltsin’s government backed such processes of decentralisation and democratization in the hope that they would lead to a breakdown of Soviet ideology evident within the sphere of education. Furthermore, Dneprov aimed to develop a new, modern school system of which would co-exist via the new market based, privatized economy, ultimately leading to a complementary system of education. This process of removing the Soviet ideology began with developing curricula, whilst also making education individualistic, meaning that each child would be taught in accordance to their needs. Dneprov outlined such a strategy, suggesting, “decentralization of the system of administering education is a must, excessive regulation must be eliminated, and all those involved in the schools must be empowered” . As Dneprov developed his ideas surrounding educational planning, this was immediately seen as a rapid departure from the highly centralized, dictatorial policy of the Soviet years, summarised through giving power to local authorities and encouraging creativity and individualisation.
Moreover, Dneprov’s model of education was a result of co-operation by the Yeltsin government of which “essentially disassembled the existing structures to rebuild a new decentralized system free of the ideological and structural traditions of the Soviet Union” . However, you cannot solely credit Dneprov for these developments, as his plans echoed remnants of the reform movements of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
If one was to critically analyse Dneprov’s reform program, you discover that he suffered from an inability to transfer his previous pivotal role as leader of VNIK Shkola. Following his instalment as Minister of Education, Dneprov’s reforms quickly suffered from uninspiring support and the limitations of economic insecurity. Here, Olga Marincheva states in Komsomol’skaya Pravda on May 25, 1991, “Dneprov the minister is not as sharp-edged, and not as distinctive as Dneprov the rebel” . In his position of Minister of Education, Dneprov failed to maintain adequate support for his policies as he instead dealt with the practicalities of paying teachers and modernizing school buildings.
Furthermore, Dneprov’s reforms were largely unenforceable due to the lack of a law on education. In 1991, Dneprov wrote an article for the Teachers’ Gazette in, Al’terniva, suggesting that “the tendency toward differentiation is a welcome development, in that it opens up new opportunities for satisfying personal needs in education and serves as a stimulant to growth for the system as a whole” . The Law of Education was finally approved on May 22, 1992, and the law divided administrative powers between three levels of government, including duties to the federal, regional, and local governments, all in turn reducing the grasping controls of the centre.
At its introduction, the law outlined a shift away from state control over educational policy, allowing for varied curricula, of which was adapted in accordance to its purpose. For example, this allowed for Non-Russian dominant regions to propose their own unique curricula, of which adhered to their individual national and historical traditions. This practise created levels of autonomy never before seen within local authorities, allowing themselves to choose education strategies most appropriate to the time and specific region. Another evident change was seen with objective teaching, whereby, educational practises were separated from narrow, institutional views, allowing the younger generation to deal ‘with all aspects of the society they would encounter by presenting a broader interpretation of the world’ .
The new law also envisioned that education must have a continual, lengthy and meaningful impact throughout the lifetime of each citizen. Hereby, the main goal of education transferred away from its disappointingly derived economic burden upon the state, to one, which fuelled economic progress. Within such exclamations, both vocational training and specified educational practises aimed to complement the economic reforms brought about by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. To determine the importance and implementation of the new system of education, specifics of 90’s curricula upon public schooling will now be examined to reveal how such a dominant ideology diminished and was eventually replaced.
It was not until the 1993 Constitution that each citizen was granted the right to education. Upon this, the constitution declared that basic general education is compulsory, where alongside co-operation of parents; children would be urged to attend. Furthermore, the constitution made way for “general access to free preschool, basic general, and secondary vocational education in state or municipal educational establishments” . The structure outlined by the 1993 constitution, paved way for 35.2 million students to be enrolled in Russian schools, including 20.5 million in general primary and secondary schools, 1.8million in professional and technical schools, 2.1 million in special secondary schools, and 2.6 million in institutions of higher learning.
The early 1990’s also led to extensive curriculum revision. Hereby, a new paradigm was introduced, of which had been developed in accordance to ‘guide education’, lessening of ideological modes and more attentions was applied to the arts, humanities and social sciences. As the 1992 Law on Education introduced a ‘humanistic nature of education, common values, freedom of human development, and citizenship. However, aside from these principles, another document titled ‘the basic curriculum of the general secondary school’ pioneered the reform program, where it was intended to be put in place over a five-year period ending in 1998. As Russia approached the mid 1990’s, an approach upon education in public schools allowed for each school to design their own special curricula, of which many drew similarities from the 1900s by reintroducing classical studies. Such practises were made possible by the restructuring process of the 1992 Law on Education, of which paved way for the legal local development of curricula and materials. However, upon these changes, a lack of finance pumped into education meant that there was limited experimentation and the Soviet era proved hard to become separated from certain changes. The Soviet era had left a distinct mark on educators, who instead of adopting and adapting to new modes of education, many were left incredibly bias towards standardized instruction and routine memorisation. Furthermore, such bias and lingering Soviet principles meant that there was a complete variation in terms of the quality and content within the public schooling system. Moreover, the post-soviet era led to the disarray of federal education agencies, of which before had a restrictive and overbearing effect upon the controls local communities had upon curricula interpretation. Post-Soviet disarray in the education agencies meant that local initiative was no longer restricted as much, allowing for oblast, regional and municipal authorities to their own devices. Regardless of this added freedom, it is said that ‘only about one-third of primary and secondary schools have taken advantage of the opportunity to develop their own curricula; many administrations have been unwilling to make such large-scale decisions independently.
Another division that had occurred by the mid-1990s left the Soviet era behind through applying education alongside society. A new phenomenon, similar to that seen previously in the United States encouraged individual commercial success, where the widespread Russian attitude was influenced towards education and its goals. Further within Russian society, the last generation of Soviet-educated individuals had a profound effect upon the future direction of Russian education. Those Soviet educated individuals found themselves unprepared to deal with the changing society and economy. Within the Soviet system, collectivisation and Marxist ideas were held in high regard, yet such practises now did not align with the new notion, which held the acquisition of money as far more important for both self-respect and practical survival. Another element that proved hard to brush away related to career prestige, where in post-soviet society such prestige was less held in high regard, unlike before when every career label ensured known levels of comfort.
In general, the financial insecurity of the 1990s endangered many experimental reform movements, similar to what was seen in the 1920s. Intentions to bring in new policy were always held back by the fact that the limited school funding and lowly teacher salaries existed on a widespread scale.
The practical needs of school funding and teacher salaries were not being addressed, this made implementing new policy nearly impossible. During times of uncertainty and material shortage, educators and parents craved traditionalism and stability in education. When the economic collapse came in 1998, education reform was relegated to a role of secondary importance. Since the 1990s, there have been increasing levels of concern regarding the trajectory and long- term stability of Russian schools, “Russian education since the mid-1990s has been
Constitution of the Russian Federation. Section One: Chapter 2. Rights and Liberties of Man and Citizen. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/ const/ch2.html (accessed April 20, 2011).
Furthermore, to determine how the period of reform played out in the following years, an examination of the modern Russian educational system will reveal whether a Period of stability in education is evident, questioning whether education is still in transition.
A period of stagnation followed the mid 1990’s, where the economy collapsed in 1998, however, the 2000s brought about a period of stabilisation, where in turn you would consider if this had a major impact upon educational reform. Educational reform initially was seen to have been a process more entwined in theory, rather than in reality. However, the removal of Soviet ideology within teaching, textbooks and so on paved way for more open interpretation from differing social theories of schools around the world. Even though this allowed for new thinking and an impetus upon learning for the future, these ideas were not backed up by the structure and operation of schools. The structure of schooling never had the financial backing and/or proper implementation in place for the realisation of a post-soviet education system. Schools were seen to be operating ‘as havens from the uncertainty and instability of the socio-political climate in Russia in the late 1990s’. Thus far, educational changes stagnated, and coupled with teachers suffering from long periods of non-payment and institutional abandonment. Furthermore, the limited success of the 1990s reform period revealed an education system that was still seen to be progressing under a highly soviet system of educational structure and curriculum without the benefit of state funding, ideological unity, or culture of learning. Ultimately, when looking at the conduct of Russian schools, many appear very similar to those that operated under the Soviet ideology, where many did not address the needs of the Russian Federation and the people in modern Russia. Moreover, Post-Soviet demographic shifts, due to both immigration and emigration, also have encouraged an increasing consciousness concerning multi-culturalism and globalism . The system appears out of date in accordance to the modern Russian society, and the new societal impetus upon privatism and democratization have not been reflected in schooling.
, “Demographic Change and the Fate of Russia’s Schools: The impact of population shifts on educational practice and policy,” Educational Reform, 153.
Kerr, “Demographic Change and the Fate of Russia’s Schools: The impact of population shifts on educational practice and policy,” Educational Reform, 168.
In addition, while teachers have held their positions through tremendous hardships “there are some signs of more open stress among teachers. One example is teacher strikes, which in 1998 involved 7,695 schools, and 252,000 teachers around the country” .
Aside from the legacy from the fractionally effective reform programs, an examination of ‘Our New School’ program of which was incepted In January of 2010 reveals education reform as a priority in his over the next years. Hereby, Medvedev and Putin declared that the Russian educational system is in need of a revamp, of which plays in accordance to the needs of the Russian education system and rework the schools to fit the needs of modern Russian society. The plan was developed with the supervision of current Minister of Science and Education Andrei Fursenko. Fursenko stated that "Our New School" aims at the gradual transition to new education standards, some changes in the infrastructure of the school network, at keeping up and building up the health of schoolchildren, and at developing the teaching potential and the support system for talented children” .
Hereby, following such proclamations a new law of education was passed in 2011, the first law on education to have been enacted since the original one in 1992.
The effort led to the creation of a new Law on Education in early 2011.
When the new education reform was released in early 2011, public backlash was
such that Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister, and Minister of Education Andrei Fursenko, immediately backpedaled, calling the reforms too extreme. Vladimir Ryzkhov, writing for the Moscow Times, illustrated the popular perceptions of the law, “according to the plan, starting in 2012, schoolchildren will study only four required subjects, and of those, only two are clearly defined: physical education and general safety. The remaining two are the cryptic “individual project” and the highly suspicious Russia in
Criticism of the efforts has extended beyond the education community, with the public wary of the implications for the future of Russian education. Students have taken an active role in protesting the changes, particularly those at the levels of upper secondary and higher intensified following a statement by co-author of the reform, former Deputy Education Minister Alexander Kondakov, “added fuel to the fire by calling patriotism more important than math. "It's a
priority task for any state to bring up a citizen and patriot," he told Gzt.ru last month. "It's even more important than mathematics fear that the reforms will become a tool of the United Russia party to ensure support among the younger generations, particularly with the introduction of the mandatory ‘Russia in the World’ class, one of only three mandatory subjects under the new reform plan.
Education Modernization Project.” SRAS, Jan, 22, 2010, http://www.sras.org/medvedev_to_launch_education_modernization_project (accessed on April 15, 2011)., “Disastrous Consequences of Neo-Soviet Education in Russia” The Moscow Times, Feb. 17, 2011 http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/force-feeding-political- indoctrination/431014.html (accessed April 15, 2011)., “Russian Students Protest against Education Law.” EuroNews, April 13, 2011, http://www.euronews.net/2011/04/11/russian-students-protest-against- education-law/ (accessed April 22, 2011).
Medvedev: No one is going to mess up our education system” April 18, 2011. http://www.newsbcm.com/doc/763 www.newsbcm.com, (accessed on April 22, 2011).
Worth noting when discussing the modern changes made to educational practises is the new impetus upon the history curriculum, where Putin has used events such as the annexation of the Crimea to highlight the importance of historical education. This has led to the Russian federation being seen as a ‘unique example of ideological repositioning of historical narratives, blending certain Soviet and Russian historiography’ . In 2014, Putin declared, “we have to develop common approaches and views…especially in Russian history, and the history the people of the Russian federation…there should be no distortion of facts, and biased interpretations of the history of our country” . Following this statement, Russian textbooks have implemented ‘national ideology’ where common civic values to consolidate the Russian nation are promoted. Additionally, Putin grouped together his cabinet, The Ministry of Education and the Russian Historical Society to revise and update the national framework for new standardised textbooks of Russian history. One example can be seen in January 2014 where Putin declared there was need to celebrate key historical events, hereby, suggesting that the Great Patriotic War (World War II) and the October 1917 revolution were of great national significance . This new historical importance within education reflects an existence of the nexus between ideology and the state and nation-building process. Such a new ideological biases and omissions remain to be prevalent within textbooks across the country and comparably you could suggest this is similar to the ‘Europeanization’ of history textbooks in the EU, of which reflects the Western-dominated narrative of pluralist democracy, multiculturalism and human rights.
To summarise, it remains clear that the initial impetus for radical change that thrived in the early post-Soviet years has dissipated and been replaced by more moderated reform program. However, dispute concerning the course for education has stalled reform efforts since the early 1990s. In a 2008 conference on trends of change in the Russian political economy, a report on policy trends in Russian education identified a source of the post-Soviet stagnation in education. “During the 1990s, there was enormous energy and the will to change, but available resources encouraged a survival mentality. Since 2000, the economic situation has improved markedly. However, resistance to change has grown” program for the future of education is developed, Russian schools will remain disconnected from the trends of modern Russian society.
To conclude, it remains evident that even away from Soviet times, the Russian educational system remains as a system highly intoxicated by politics and suffers from a continuation of the ideological unity of school, society, and government during the communist era. Even with the new school introduced in 2010, the system also remains shrouded in controversy and politically burdened. As seen in the 1990s, Soviet ideology was removed from schools, yet this suggestively left schools with little backing and/or limited direction for the meaning of schools. Importantly, it also remains difficult to note when/where the social and political structure of an independent Russia progressed in education. Reforms introduced in the 1990s, still remain in progress some 20 years later, seemingly revealing an array of reformers and counter-reformers, who with their to new ideas and openness in debate have reshaped Russian society. Russian Education in the present importantly considers the changing social attitudes and roles in an evolving society. Ultimately, similarly to patterns in Soviet times, it has been suggested that today in Russian “political culture the status the leader’s personality enjoys is incomparably higher than the status attributed to various parties, movements and state structures” & “though the Soviet Union is no more, Soviet people are still here”.
Finally, Russian schools remain in an unsettled state, where change has occurred much more rapidly and profoundly in some areas than in others. This is comparable to educational policies in the 1920s and 1930s, where the periphery suffered as the centre pioneered a golden age of civic education.