History of development and features of management of educational institutions. Development of pedagogy in Russia The importance of the history of pedagogy and education

The development of pedagogical consciousness during this period is characterized by the formation of classical and reformist pedagogy.
Russian pedagogical thought of the first half of the 19th century. represented by such names as M.M. Speransky (1772-1839) and M.N. Karamzin (1776-1826), V.A. Zhukovsky (1783-1852), A.P. Kunitsyn (1783-1841), N.I. Lobachevsky (1792-1856), T.N. Granovsky (1813-1855) and others. Special pedagogical works also appeared at this time, for example, the work of I.P. Pnin (1773-1805) “The experience of enlightenment in relation to Russia.

In the 30s of the 19th century, there was a process of global comprehension of Russian social life and education, as a result of which several directions of philosophical and pedagogical thought emerged.

The first - western-oriented direction - can rightfully be associated with P.Ya. Chaadaev (1794-1856), who proposed the development of Russia, and accordingly Russian education, along the path of their radical replacement with Western European culture, including the replacement of Orthodoxy with Catholicism.

V.G. Belinsky (1811-1848) became the founder of the revolutionary democratic trend in Russian social thought and Russian pedagogy. Its most important demands: personal freedom, equality, etc. The main opponents of individual freedom and the progress of the country, in his opinion, were the monarchical system and Orthodoxy, which should have been eliminated.

A.I. Herzen (1812-1870) actively addressed issues of education in his numerous publications and artistic works.

A.S. Pushkin (1799-1837) can be recognized as the founder of the nationally oriented trend in Russian culture. Not only did he act as a defender of the traditional way of life of Russian society, but his views on Russian education over time changed significantly in favor of traditional foundations.

A.S. can be considered the true founders of the theory of traditional Russian society and Russian education. Khomyakova (1804-1860), and I.V. Kireyevsky (1806-1856). Realizing the insufficiency and one-sidedness of the Western European path of development of humanitarian thought, the dead end of one-sided rational philosophy, they proposed a different way of comprehending the truth, a different system for constructing knowledge. They consisted of a return to Christian philosophy and its highest manifestation - the patristic heritage. Based on the works of the holy fathers, they proposed ideas for the development of traditional Russian education.

N.V. Gogol (1814-1852). I also understood the futility of blindly borrowing Western European culture, Western European education and pedagogy for Russia. Therefore, he proposed developing Russian education based on its historical, traditional cultural foundations. At the same time, he proposed not to close himself off from Western European culture, but to take from it what was necessary for Russian society and its successful development.

First half of the 19th century gave the world many great spiritual figures, and among them the Monk Seraphim of Sarov (1759-1831), one of the greatest saints of the Russian land. His teaching about the spiritual development of man is the most important source of true spiritual and moral education.

Speaking about the main directions of development of pedagogical thought in Russia, it should be said about the pedagogical figures themselves and their works.

In the 30s, one of the wonderful teachers of Russia, O.E., worked. Gugel (1804-1841). His textbooks for primary education are widely known. P.S. worked with him. Guryev (1807-1884). At the same time, the first pedagogy textbooks appeared in Russia. Their author was A.G. Obodovsky (1796-1852).

In the second half of the 19th century. Many famous figures worked in Russian pedagogy. Among them: N.F. Bunakov (1837-1904), V.I. Vodovozov (1825-1886), A.Ya. Gerd (1841-1888), N.A. Korf (1834-1883), P.F. Lesgaft (1837-1909), D.D. Semenov (1834-1902), V.Ya. Stoyunin (1826-1888), P.G. Redkin (1808-1891), P.D. Yurkevich (1826-1874) and others.

The greatest contribution to the development of pedagogy in the second half of the 19th century, which rightfully became a Russian pedagogical classic, was made by N.I. Pirogov, N.A. Dobrolyubov,
N.G. Chernyshevsky, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy, K.D. Ushinsky, S.A. Rachinsky, K.P. Pobedonostsev and others.

N.I. Pirogov (1810-1891). Having published his article “Questions of Life,” he posed one of the most important problems of Russian education and upbringing - the problem of the relationship between general human and special education. The article was a huge success and immediately made the name of Pirogov famous throughout Russia, and placed the problems of education at the center of public life.

After the publication of the article by N.I. Pirogov actively became involved in the pedagogical life of the country, becoming a trustee of the Odessa and then the Kyiv educational districts. At the same time, he published many works on educational issues, in which he proposed his own education system for Russia.

According to Pirogov, the Russian education system was to consist of a universal two-year elementary school, a real or classical progymnasium (4 years of study), real (3 - 4 years of study) and classical (3 years of study) gymnasiums, universities and other higher educational institutions.

From Pirogov’s point of view, the foundation of education should have been the universal principle, its embodiment in the content of education was classical culture. Therefore, in the development of secondary school, he gave priority to the classical rather than the real content of education.

N.I. Pirogov did a lot for the development of education in Russia, improving the training and professional skills of teachers, and humanizing relations in school.

L.N. Tolstoy (1828-1910) entered Russian pedagogy both as a theorist, who wrote a number of profound articles on upbringing and education, and as a practitioner, who devoted many years to the creation of a public school and prepared his wonderful educational books for it.

Tolstoy's most important idea is the natural and free formation of education, especially the public school. Based on this theoretical attitude, Tolstoy insisted that the Russian folk school should be freely developed in the course of its natural historical development by the people themselves. Following this idea, he opens his own school in Yasnaya Polyana and develops new educational content for it. He also proposed a new organization of the school, which actually became a full-day school, and new teaching methods that contributed to the development of children’s creative abilities and the formation of their activity. The work of the school soon became widely known, and many teachers, even foreign ones, sought to get acquainted with its activities.

After the closure of the school in Yasnaya Polyana, Tolstoy continued his studies in pedagogy: he wrote articles in which he outlined the ideas of free education, textbooks for elementary school, which were not only didactically perfect, but also carried enormous moral potential, and constantly met with teachers.

N.G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) played a major role in the establishment and development of revolutionary democratic ideology and pedagogical thought.

As a follower of the ideas of the Enlightenment, he argued that the progress of society is determined by the degree of development of the mind, and therefore enlightenment is the most important engine of human progress. Therefore, the most important task of philosophy, science, literature, and art is, according to Chernyshevsky, the mental and moral development of the people. Hence the special responsibility of the intelligentsia, enlightened people to their people for their education and upbringing (in general, Chernyshevsky’s writings played a big role in rooting in Russia such concepts as duty, service to the Motherland and the people), responsibility for the education of those who are deprived of it - the common people , women. Chernyshevsky has great merit in substantiating the anthropological principle as the leading scientific principle of the social sciences, including pedagogy.

N.D Dobrolyubov (1836-1861) had a significant influence on the development of pedagogical thought in Russia. He wrote a number of profound pedagogical articles in which he outlined his understanding of the nature of the child and his upbringing.

The initial idea of ​​Dobrolyubov’s pedagogy is the idea of ​​the rational nature of the child, which he put forward in the article “On the importance of authority in education.” Proper education, Dobrolyubov argued, should be built in accordance with the rational nature of the child, should be oriented toward the “development of the inner man.” Based on this idea, Dobrolyubov was able to reconsider many aspects of existing education and identify ways to improve it. Thus, he acted as a decisive opponent of authoritarian concepts of education, which required the suppression of the child’s will and his subordination to the “reasonable will of an adult,” and against unreasonable punishment of children, especially physical punishment. And apparently thanks to Dobrolyubov’s passionate and decisive position, already in the 60s. physical punishment in Russian schools was officially abolished. Who can count how many millions of children Dobrolyubov saved the health of with his uncompromising position... Dobrolyubov made a certain contribution to improving the content of school education and children's reading.

The most prominent ideologists of the nationally oriented path of development of Russian education were: K.D. Ushinsky (1824-1870); S.A. Rachinsky (1833-1902);
M.Ya. Danilevsky (1822-1885); A.A. Tikhomirov (1852-1890); K.V. Leontyev (1831-1891); F.M. Dostoevsky (1821-1881); K.P. Pobedonostsev (1827-1907); S.I. Miropolsky (1842-1907); N.I. Ilminsky (1822-1891).

K.D. Ushinsky (1824-1870). His name rightfully stands on a par with the great teachers of the world, and for education and pedagogy in Russia his activities are of the same importance as the activities of Lomonosov for science, Pushkin for literature, and Glinka for music.

K.D. Ushinsky played a decisive role in the development of public education in Russia, primary and secondary schools, women's and professional pedagogical education, pedagogy and teaching methods, developmental and educational psychology. His pedagogical legacy can be presented in the form of three parts: theoretical works, methodological works and educational books.

The first part - theoretical works - includes works from articles devoted to the analysis of education systems in different countries of the world to the fundamental work “Man as a subject of education, or the Experience of pedagogical anthropology.”

The uniqueness of K.D.’s pedagogical thinking Ushinsky is that he analyzes education in all forms of theoretical pedagogical consciousness, based on theological, social (“the principle of nationality”) and anthropological principles.

The second part is the methodological works of K.D. Ushinsky. They outline the system of teaching and learning based on his educational books “Native Word” and “Children’s World”.

The third part is educational books by K.D. Ushinsky: “Native Word” (year one, two, three) and “Children’s World” in two parts. The educational books “Native Word” were intended for the initial teaching of the Russian language to 7-10 year old children; "Children's World" - for older children. It provided material for teaching the native language, native literature, natural science, geography, logic, and Russian history.

In building a system of Russian upbringing and education, Ushinsky intended to proceed from the idea of ​​nationality, which underlies the education of any nation.

Ushinsky developed the theory and methodology of teaching in elementary schools and public schools. He advocated the organization of a public school, built on popular principles and led by the people.

At the end of his life K.D. Ushinsky came up with the idea of ​​​​organizing vocational and craft training for children from the people.

Much attention to K.D. Ushinsky paid attention to the issues of building a secondary school. As an inspector of the Smolny Institute, he reorganized the educational part of this educational institution, creating a modern high school. He also wrote a lot about secondary schools in Russia: gymnasiums, colleges, military gymnasiums, schools under ecclesiastical authority; proposed an education system for the future heir to the Russian throne. Although these were different schools, what unites them in Ushinsky’s works is that he proposed building their activities on the basis of nationality, science and Orthodoxy.

Analyzing the work of the university, K.D. Ushinsky wrote that of all educational institutions in Russia, only its universities corresponded to the idea of ​​nationality. Therefore, he advocated the gradual improvement of their work, believing that universities should perform scientific, educational, educational and educational functions.

K.D. Ushinsky advocated for the organization of higher education for women in Russia. He wanted to create a higher school on the basis of the Smolny Institute, but retirement did not allow him to implement this idea.

He developed a system of pedagogical education, which included pedagogical classes in women's gymnasiums and women's institutes such as Smolny, teachers' seminaries, as well as pedagogical faculties at universities. He also developed the basics of organization, content, forms and methods of operation of these institutions.

Thus, in the works of K.D. Ushinsky proposed a unified system of upbringing and education, starting with family education and ending with university education, a system based on the principles of nationality, Orthodoxy and anthropological principles. This system takes into account the age characteristics of students and the specific characteristics of each class of students.

F.M. Dostoevsky (1821-1881). Although his artistic work is the subject of countless literary studies, his pedagogical legacy remains systematically almost unread.

F.M. Dostoevsky as a teacher appears, firstly, as the educator of Grand Duke Konstantin Romanov; secondly, as a brilliant artist, in whose work many aspects of the development, formation and education of a child’s soul were reflected; thirdly, as a pedagogical theorist who substantiated in his journalistic works the ways and forms of development of Russian upbringing and education.

The most important pedagogical problems posed by F.M. Dostoevsky: the relationship between the universal and the national in Russian education (he argued that Russia will enter world civilization in no other way than through the maximum development of its national culture, therefore it should form the basis of Russian upbringing and education); the role of science in education - it should be given priority attention; the nature of education - it must be serious and real work; expansion of education, inclusion of broad sections of the people in education, granting the right to receive education, including higher education, to women; the problem of freedom and moral responsibility - their unity; legal consciousness and its formation in Russian people; training of a national teacher, etc.

S.A. Rachinsky (1833-1902) - a great Russian teacher who devoted most of his life to public education. Author of many works on the organization of education in public schools.

K.P. Pobedonostsev (1827-1907) is a great thinker of Russia, the significance of whose social and pedagogical ideas is only just beginning to be truly understood, the creator of the system of parochial education in Russia.

S.I. Miropolsky (1842-1907) - one of the prominent theorists and figures in the parochial school. His theoretical and methodological works and textbooks were of great importance for the development of the parochial school.

A.A. Tikhomirov (1852-1890) substantiated the leading role of the Orthodox Church in spiritual and moral education. He wrote: “The Church is precisely the environment in which a worldview is brought up, indicating to man the absolute dominance in the world of the supreme moral principle.”

In the second half of the 19th century. accounts for the main activities of the greatest saints and thinkers of Russia: Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, Bishop Theophan the Recluse, St. Ambrose of Optina, etc.

Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) (1782-1867) - a great figure and educator of Russia, author of many theological works and textbooks. He and his associates translated the Bible into Russian.

Bishop Theophan the Recluse (1815-1884) is one of the greatest thinkers of Russia. He wrote a number of religious and pedagogical works, which set out the fundamental ideas and principles of Orthodox pedagogy.

Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov) (1807-1867) - formulated the most important principles of Orthodox understanding and education of a person.

Reverend Ambrose of Optina (1812-1891) is the greatest saint, to whom many great people of Russia turned for advice and guidance, including F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy and others practically embodied the principles of patristic pedagogy in his activities.

The end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th century. in Russia - the time of formation and development of reformist pedagogy, which, as in Western Europe, is characterized by the creation of new branches of psychological and pedagogical science, new directions for their development, along with the development of traditional pedagogy.

The most important directions in the development of pedagogical thought in Russia were:
Philosophical direction. A number of philosophers addressed issues of education at this time: V.S. Soloviev (1853-1990), V.V. Rozanov (1856-1919), N.A. Berdyaev (1874-1948), P.A. Florensky (1882-1937) and others.

In the field of general pedagogy, such figures as M.I. Demkov (1859-1939) - author of fundamental works on the history of education and general pedagogy; P.F. Kapterev (1849-1921) - a prominent historian and pedagogical theorist; P.F.’s activities continue. Lesgaft; The works of V.P. are widely known, especially among primary school teachers. Vakhterova (1853-1924) and others.

An important direction of this period was the pedagogy of free education. The experience of S.T. became widely known. Shatsky (1878-1934), who created several children's communes in which children received not only education, but also upbringing; K.N. Wentzel (1857-1947), author of books on free education and creator of a school built on these ideas;
IN AND. Farmakovsky.

Since the beginning of the 20th century. A new pedagogical science is developing in Russia - pedology. Its most prominent representatives were N.E. Rumyantsev, S.A. Levitin et al.

During this period, the formation of general, pedagogical, developmental and special psychology takes place. The most prominent role in its development was played by: G.I. Chelpanov (1862-1936) - one of the founders of Russian psychology, founder of the Institute of Psychology; A.F. Lazursky (1874-1917) - one of the founders of child and developmental psychology; A.P. Nechaev (1870-1948) - one of the founders of Russian experimental psychology; I.A Sikorsky (1842-1919) - a prominent scientist in the field of child psychology; V.P. Kashchenko (1870-1943), known for his theoretical works and practical activities in the field of raising children with disabilities in mental development.

At this time, representatives of the natural sciences also began to study issues of pedagogy. The most prominent representatives of this trend were V.M. Bekhterev (1857-1927), V.I. Vernadsky (1863-1945), D.I. Mendeleev (1834-1907) and others.

Among the figures of Orthodox pedagogy, the name of John of Kronstadt (1829-1908) is the most famous. He taught for many years at the Kronstadt gymnasium. His pedagogical ideas: Christocentricity, living faith in God as the basis for spiritual and moral development and education of a person.

In general, the main merits of Russian pedagogy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. you can imagine it like this. Its leaders not only mastered all forms of theoretical pedagogical consciousness, but also created works of global significance; formed the philosophy and ideology of Russian education; substantiated such principles as the principle of nationality and Orthodoxy in education, argued the need for the priority of education in education, the labor nature of the learning process, the personal-collective principle in education, etc.; developed different models and types of schools from primary to higher education; laid the foundations of the modern content of education from primary (K.D. Ushinsky, L.N. Tolstoy, K.P. Pobedonostsev, S.A. Rachinsky, etc.) to higher school; wrote modern textbooks and teaching methods based on them; developed successful forms and methods of teaching in all types of schools.

XIX - early XX centuries - a time of rapid development of Russian education. Already the beginning of the 19th century. characterized by major reforms in education. The most important role in reforming education during this period was played by M.M. Speransky. His name is associated with the restructuring of the entire education system, primarily higher and spiritual, and the opening of fundamentally new educational institutions, including the lyceum in Tsarskoe Selo. In 1802, the Ministry of Public Education was established, which began to develop educational reforms in Russia. In 1804, the “Charter of educational institutions subordinate to universities” was approved, which determined the content and organization of Russian education.

According to the charter, a unified education system was established in Russia (unfortunately, this legislative decision was canceled a year later). The country was divided into six educational districts according to the number of universities, and all educational institutions subordinate to the Ministry of Public Education came under their control. According to this charter, four types of schools were established in Russia: parish schools, district schools, gymnasiums and universities.

After the Patriotic War of 1812, conservatism began to increase in education, the growth of the number of educational institutions slowed down, and academic freedoms were limited. At the same time, attempts are being made to build education on truly Christian and popular principles. The development of this area of ​​educational policy is associated primarily with the activities of the Minister of Public Education A.S. Shishkova.

The development of Russian education in the second quarter of the 19th century was determined by the activities of Emperor Nicholas I. The Charter of 1828 quite strictly isolated different levels of education from each other, linking them with certain classes. The paradox of the reforms of this period is that, on the one hand, there were restrictions on the activities of gymnasiums and universities, and on the other, educational institutions were created aimed at training specialists for industry and agriculture, various vocational schools were opened: agricultural, technical, commercial, including higher ones, for example, the Institute of Technology, the Institute of Civil Engineers, etc. Much effort was made to organize public education, so there was an increase in the number of public schools, the most prominent role in the organization of which was played by V.F. Odoevsky (1804-1869).

During this period, the most significant contribution to the development of the content and technologies of primary education was made by E.O. Gugel with his textbooks and V.F. Odoevsky - with his books and methodological developments.

The development of the content of education in secondary school was extremely difficult. During the first half of the century it changed many times. At the same time, its general trend can be defined as the formation of a neoclassical content of education, which, along with classical culture and languages, included mathematics.

Mid-nineteenth century - a time of radical reforms in all spheres of life in Russia, including education. For several years after 1855, issues of education were in the center of attention of society and the state. The result of their wide public and government discussion was the charters of educational institutions adopted in the 60s, which determined the further development of the Russian school. During these same years, a powerful social and pedagogical movement emerged, which began to play an ever-increasing role in the education of Russia.

Elementary School. The 60s became the time of the creation of a fundamentally new system of public education. The most famous are the ministerial, zemstvo and parochial schools. Since the 70s XIX century In order to train teachers for public schools, teacher seminaries began to open.

High school. In the 60s in Russia, not only is the classical gymnasium being improved, but the real school is also becoming widespread, although it does not receive the rights of a classical gymnasium, and secondary schools of various departments are being reformed: military, spiritual, etc.

60s became the time for the creation of a new system of women's education. Previously existing women's educational institutions, both secular and religious, are being completely reformed. The most striking example of this is the Smolny Institute. A new type of women's educational institution is being created - a women's gymnasium. The first women's gymnasium in Russia was opened in 1856 in St. Petersburg by V.I. Vyshnegradsky.

National schools in all regions of Russia experienced a noticeable rise during this period.

Graduate School. As a result of the reforms of the 60s. Expenses for higher education increased, the number of universities and institutes increased. Universities received autonomy. The content of education has undergone serious changes. The quality of university education in Russia corresponded to the world level.

From the middle of the 19th century. The formation of modern content and teaching technologies began, which differed from those previously formed in the same way as the literature of the 19th century. from literature of the 18th century. An outstanding role in this process was played by K.D. Ushinsky, N.I. Pirogov and other teachers of this period.

Thus, educational reforms in Russia in the 60-70s were expressed in the rapid expansion of the network of different schools, from primary to higher education, including the massive opening of public schools and secondary schools for women.

The period of the reign of Alexander III was a period of slowdown in the development of Russian education, and at the same time, this period also had its own noticeable phenomena in education, in particular the creation of a full-fledged system of parochial schools.

Beginning of the 20th century - a time of rapid development of Russian education. In general, despite the diversity of schools, the main trend in education was to create a unified national education system. This was especially clearly manifested in the education reform project of Minister P.N. Ignatiev, who proposed three options for a single school: modern, classical and neoclassical. Ignatiev’s activities as minister were quite fruitful: despite wartime, there is a rapid increase in the number of different schools, a transition to universal public education is taking place, the combination of efforts of the state and society in education is becoming more and more fruitful, a number of new curricula and teaching aids have been prepared .

The Provisional Government went even further in creating a unified school. In resolutions, decisions, and practical developments it was intended to create a unified education system, taking into account various conditions and modifications.

Let us briefly characterize the development of education during this period.

Elementary School. Different types of primary schools were created - at the beginning of the 20th century. There were 60 of them in Russia. The main ones were ministerial, zemstvo and parochial schools. In 1912, higher public schools with a 3-year period of study were established in Russia, and teacher training institutes began to function to train teachers to work in them.

Beginning of the 20th century was especially fruitful for the development of secondary schools in Russia. During this period, a variety of schools functioned: state - gymnasiums, commercial schools, military schools (cadet corps), etc.; public - real gymnasiums, women's gymnasiums, etc.; private - gymnasiums, especially for women, schools, colleges. And almost all of these educational institutions provided a high level of education.

Higher education, especially non-state education, developed quite quickly.

In general, the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. were, on the one hand, a time of rapid development of Russian education, and on the other, a time of great upheaval. The troubles in education are evidenced by the fact that during this period more than 10 ministers of education were replaced, and often the new minister pursued a policy directly opposite to that pursued by his predecessor, which brought fever to the entire education system.

Thus, the historical period of the XIX - early XX centuries. turned out to be a time of fairly rapid and fruitful development of Russian education, when the system of modern Russian education basically took shape.
© All rights reserved

Similar material:

• Explanatory note to the scheme “School management system”, 76.61kb.
• Analysis of school management and the activities of the administration to control education 2008/2009, 98.34kb.
• Development of education and pedagogical thought on the territory of Belarus in the 60s. early nineteenth, 1279.26kb.
• , 265.8kb.
• Boarding school development program No. 1 for 2010-2015, 936.47kb.
• Main functions of pedagogical management, 108.13kb.
• Political and legal process in domestic education 1801-1917, 824.49kb.
• Lesson on the history of the ancient world in 5th grade. Topic: Ancient Greek school, 165.01kb.
• From the history of the school, 855.66kb.
• Planning as a management function. Organization as a management function, 91.13kb.

Educational systems management

Topic: “Organization of school management in the history of pedagogy.”

(2 hours).

1. M.V. Lomonosov’s formulation of issues of school organization.
2. Administrative and pedagogical activities of N.I. Pirogov.
3. K.D. Ushinsky is a reformer of educational institutions.
4. L.N. Tolstoy is the creator of the people's school of free development.
5. Inspector and director of public schools I.N. Ulyanov.
6. Modern ideas of teachers about management.

Literature:

1. Akhtamzyan N.A. System of state-public management of education in Germany // Pedagogy. – 2004. - No. 6. – p.85-93.
2. Goncharov N.K. Pedagogical system K.D. Ushinsky. - M., 1974.

3. Ivansky A.I. Ilya Nikolaevich Ulyanov. According to the memoirs of contemporaries and documents. - M., 1963.

4. History of Pedagogy: A Textbook for Pedagogical Students. Institute / I.L. Konstantinov, E.N. Medynsky, M.F. Shabaeva. - M., 1982.

5. Krasnovsky A.A. Pedagogical ideas of N.I. Pirogov. - M., 1949.

6. Morozova O.P. Pedagogical workshop. – M.: Academy, 2000.

7. Perevalova L.A. Pedagogical views of M.V. Lomonosov. - M., 1964.

8. Smirnov A.V. About one of the possible ways of developing a school in the 21st century // Science and Life. - 1999. - No. 2.

9. Tolstoy L.I. Pedagogical works / Comp. N.V. Veikshan. - M, 1984.

1. Management of educational systems / Ed. V.S. Kukushina. – M., 2003. – p. 21-77.

Tasks:

1. Read the article by Akhtamzyan N.A. and conduct a comparative analysis of management systems in Germany and Russia. Prepare a report on this issue.
2. Solve pedagogical problems proposed in the workshop by O.P. Morozova: No. 1, 2, 3, 8 (p. 298-300).
3. Prepare an abstract report on the article by Smirnov A.V.

Topic: “School documentation and equipment.”

1. Functions of intra-school information, reporting and educational and pedagogical information.

2. Teacher documentation.

3. Documentation of school leaders.

4. Financial receipts, school budget.

5. Acquisition, storage and use of visual aids and technical aids, equipment of offices.

Literature:

1. Pedagogy / Under. ed. P.I. Faggot. - M., 1998.

2. Sergeeva V.P. Management of educational systems. – M., 2000. – pp. 109-114.

3. Frish G.L. Documentation (a short practical guide to writing management briefs). - M., 1999.

Topic: “School Pedagogical Council.”

1. 
   Contents of the work of the Pedagogical Council.
2. Methodology for conducting the Pedagogical Council.
3. Characteristics of the stages of preparation and conduct of teacher councils.
4. Non-traditional forms of pedagogical councils.

Literature:

1. 
   Pedagogy /Ed. P.I.Pidkasisty. - M., 1998. - ed. 3. - p. 578-582.
2. Berezhnova L., Lapteva L. Teachers’ council: school practice //Public education. – 2003. - No. 5.
3. Bochkova L. Teachers' Council: preparation, conduct, results // School Director. – 1998. - No. 7.
4. Selevko G.K. Non-traditional forms of pedagogical councils //Public education. – 1998. - No. 4.
5. Selevko G.K. Technologies of pedagogical councils // School technologies. – 1998. - No. 3.

Tasks.

1. 
   Study (analyze and make extracts) the proposed literature on the topic of the lesson.
2. Compare the work of teachers' councils with new forms of school-wide school management - the School Council and the Board of Trustees. Use the materials from the textbook “Pedagogy” / Ed. P.I. Pidkasisty and articles: Bochkarev V.I. On the functions of the school council // Pedagogy. – 1992. - No. 1-2; Borscheva N. Board of Trustees - a public form of management of an educational institution //Public education. – 2001. - No. 10.

Topic: “Diagnostics of the quality and results of a teacher’s professional activity.”

1. Basic stereotypes of a teacher’s activity. (Skok G.B.S. 50-51).

2. The teacher’s activities to enhance student activity. (Skok G.B.S. 53).

3. The teacher’s activities to create a positive emotional mood and regulate behavior in the classroom. (Skok G.B.S. 56-58).

4. Evaluation of teaching activities:

Students’ opinions about the quality of teaching activities;

Quality of the lesson;

Self-esteem;

Final result;

Methodological support;

Parents' opinion;

Opinions of former students.

5. Opinion of the administration. Characteristic analysis.

6. Applications. Results of the analysis of the teacher's pedagogical activity. (Skok G.B.S. 98-99).

Literature:

1. Bordovskaya N.V., Rean A.A. Pedagogy: Textbook for universities. - St. Petersburg, 2000.

2. Zvereva V.I. Certification // Diagnostics and examination of the pedagogical activities of certified teachers. - M., 1998.

3. Makarova L.V. Teacher: activity model and certification / Under. ed. prof. V.L. Balanina. - M., 1992. - P. 148.

4. Assessment and certification of education personnel abroad. A manual for employees of educational authorities and educational institutions /Under. ed. Ph.D. ped. Sciences, Associate Professor Yu.S. Alferova and corresponding member. RAO, Dr. - Psychol. Sciences V.S. Lazazeva. - M., 1997.

5. Pidkasisty P.I. Essential characteristics of cognitive activity // Bulletin of Higher School. - 1985. - No. 9. - P. 35-39.

6. Simonov V.P. Diagnosis of the personality and professional skills of the teacher. - M., 1995.

7. Skok G.B. Certification of teachers: preparation and implementation: Textbook / Responsible. ed. Yu.A. Kudryavtsev. - Novosibirsk: NSTU, 1993. - P. 63.

8. Skok G.B. How to predict your own teaching activity: Textbook. - M., 1998.

Topic: “Self-education of teachers.”

1. The purpose, objectives and forms of self-education of teachers.

2. Methodological associations; their structure and content of activity.

3. School of excellence: mentoring, problem groups, workshops.

4. Organization of open and demonstration lessons.

5. Scientific and theoretical conferences and pedagogical readings.

6. Advanced training courses. Tasks. Periodicity.

7. Self-education and self-education techniques.

8. Testing (methodology for identifying the degree of development of a teacher’s organizational skills).

Literature:

1. Gromkova M.T. If you are a teacher. M., 1998.

2. Kovalev A.G. Team and socio-psychological problems of management. - M., 1978.

3. Kuzmina N.V. Essays on the psychology of teacher work. - L., 1967.

4. Krutetsky V.A. Fundamentals of educational psychology. - M., 1972.

5. Petrovsky A.V. Abilities and work. - M., 1966. "

6. Ruvinsky L.I. Self-education of feelings of intellect, will. - M., 1983.

7. Stankin M.I. Professional abilities of a teacher. - Flint, 1998.

Topic: “Communication and conflicts in teaching activities in the school community.”

1. Identification of the objective cause of the conflict.

2. Transition from the emotional level to the rational.

3. Conflict resolution.

Direct path to eliminate consequences

Conflict.

Indirect ways to eliminate the consequences of the conflict.

4. Conflict manager.

5. Avoiding conflict.

6. Testing.

Literature:

1. Bodalev A.A. Personality and communication. - M., 1993.

2. Borodkin F.M., Koryak N.M. Attention - conflict! - Novosibirsk, 1989.

3. Veresov N.N. The formula for confrontation, or how to eliminate conflict in a team. - M., 1998.

4. Kan-Kalik V.A. To the teacher about pedagogical communication. - M., 1987.

5. Morozova O.P. Pedagogical workshop. – M.: Academy, 2000.

6. Stankin M.I. Professional abilities of a teacher. - Flint, 1998.

7. Tseng N.V., Pakhomov Yu.V. Psychotraining games and exercises. - M., 1988.

Tasks:

1. Solve the pedagogical problem presented in the workshop by O.P. Morozova - No. 6 (p. 300).
2. Approbation of psycho-trainings and exercises.

Questions for the colloquium

Based on the book by V.A. Sukhomlinsky “Conversation with a young school director.”

1. What are the main problems of a teacher’s creative work?
2. The essence of leading the creative work of a team?
3. The main pedagogical phenomena of the school. Their essence and interdependence.
4. Components of a teacher's pedagogical culture.
5. Ways to improve the general culture of teachers and students.
6. What does it mean to be a humane teacher?
7. Who are they - difficult children?
8. Fundamentals of moral education of the younger generation. Rules of moral education.
9. Visit and analysis of lessons by the director.
10. The main directions of summing up the results of the academic year.

Basic literature for the course.

1. Vorobyova S.V. Fundamentals of educational systems management. – M.: Academy, 2008.
2. Zaitseva I.A. and others. Management of educational systems. – M.: MaRT, 2003.
3. Panferova N.N. Management in the education system. – Rostovn/D: Phoenix, 2010
4. Sergeeva V.P. Management of educational systems. – M., 2000. – 136 p.
5. Management of educational systems / Ed. V.S. Kukushina. – M., 2003. – 464 p.
6. Shamova T.I., Davydenko T.M., Shibanova G.N. Management of educational systems. – M., 2002. – 384 p.

The concept of “management” is one of the most general, most universal concepts; it covers social control, control of biological processes, and control of various kinds of machines and mechanisms. In its most general form, management is the process of influencing a system in order to transfer it to a new state based on the use of objective laws inherent in this system.

The scientific foundations of management is a system of scientific knowledge that forms the theoretical basis for management practice. Scientific management of the education system can be defined as a systematic, systematic, conscious and purposeful interaction of management subjects at various levels at all its levels (from ministries to schools, preschool and out-of-school institutions) in order to ensure the education of younger generations.

The scientific foundations of management consist of two parts: management theory and specific management sciences about the elements, functions and aspects of management.

The subject of management theory is the laws of management as an integral, complex social phenomenon.

Management can be viewed statically - as a structure and dynamically - as a process.

Structure is a system of governing bodies. Each of them also has its own internal structure.

The management process is the functioning of management bodies and workers. It can be characterized from different points of view - content, organization, technology. The content of the management process is determined by the essence of management, its goals, principles, methods, functions, industry specifics, and the level of this body in the general system of management bodies.

Management principles are fundamental, fundamental rules that must be observed in the implementation of management to ensure the achievement of specified goals.

In our opinion, the essence of management quite fully and comprehensively reflects the following principles of management:

a combination of collegiality and unity of command; combination of state and public principles in management;

scientific character, inextricable relationship between theory and practice; planning;

consistency and complexity; efficiency, focus on final results.

There is a close relationship between management principles and methods. Methods are ways, ways of implementing management principles and achieving intended goals. The principles of social management are not chosen at one's own discretion - they are guided at any level of the management hierarchy, in any institution; they are obligatory, universal.

Management methods also exist objectively, they cannot be arbitrarily invented or invented, they follow from the principles of management and are conditioned by them. However, management methods, unlike principles, are more variable and presuppose a certain freedom of choice - different paths can lead to achieving the intended goal.

Unfortunately, in a number of school studies publications in recent years, the emphasis is mainly on management methods, while management methods are either not considered at all, or are mentioned in passing, among other things. It seems that such an unjustified, one-sided approach disorients school leaders and employees of public education departments, gives rise to formalism, and promotes enthusiasm for administration.

Recently, it has become fashionable in pedagogical literature to talk about school management. Management covers the totality of relationships between people that develop in the process of developing, adopting and implementing management decisions. Management functions: planning, organization, control. Heads of public education bodies mainly manage subordinate institutions. At school, the director also carries out management functions, he plans the work of the school, organizes educational issues, controls - all this is very important,

It is dangerous to downplay the importance of management functions. But it is even more dangerous to exaggerate their role, to turn them into an end in themselves. Having formally accepted management functions, some school directors began to understand management as command, administrative activity, became carried away by the search for the most complex forms of planning, tightened control, brought the information service to daily reports, reports, became interested in issuing orders and instructions - in fact, they put themselves above the process, above the team .

The basics of school management are the creation of conditions for the normal flow of the educational process. Yes, the school director is obliged to ensure a high level of planning, organization, and control. But not only that. First of all, the director is an accomplice in the pedagogical process, a co-respondent, he is directly involved in the work of the school team in teaching and raising children, he constantly works with people: teachers, students, parents of children. You can manage processes, you can only lead people.

School leaders carry out management, but at the same time they participate in the implementation of management decisions, not only plan, but personally carry out these plans step by step: first of all, create the proper psychological microclimate, a creative atmosphere in the team, show not only the maximum requirements, but also genuine caring about the teacher’s mood, his health, working conditions, they prepare events, work with active children, they are in the thick of things. Take the best school principals: A.S. Makarenko, V.N. Soroka-Rosinsky, ST. Shatsky, I.K. Novikova, V.A. Sukhomlinsky, in their activities, managerial functions occupy somewhere a small part of the time and effort; moreover, they perform these functions not formally, not in isolation: they are the instigators of all events, the organizers of the main undertakings, the think tank of the school, they are constantly in search, in working with teachers, students, parents.

Imagine being “managed” easier. Indicate, command, make decisions, and then blame and punish... Leading is much more difficult! After all, there is no one to blame here, you yourself are in the thick of things, you prepare and carry out things yourself together with your colleagues and children. But

The peculiarity of the director's work is that he cannot stand aside and command from the “beautiful distance”; administration leads to disintegration, a pedagogical fiasco.

The term “management” is closer to pedagogical reality; it specifies the application in pedagogy of general provisions related to management, taking into account the presence of other subjects, the need for unification, and the merging of chains.

Management methods are ways of influencing one or another link of the control system on other, lower links or controlled objects in order to achieve the intended management goals. Management methods are ways of influencing people who realize and implement these goals.

The art of leadership, the ability to quickly make the most correct decisions in conditions of uncertainty and lack of necessary information play a big role in the management of any object, but their share is especially large in the work of heads of schools and departments of public education. In the process of teaching and educating students, various, often unforeseen, situations arise daily and hourly, for which there are no ready-made recipes. It is almost not always possible to foresee in advance and take into account all the factors, all the variables that affect the formation of the personality of schoolchildren. Managing the educational process in all its diversity cannot be squeezed into the framework of even the most skillfully conceived plans, schedules, and diagrams, so decisions often have to be made based not only on knowledge of the basic principles of management theory, but also on practical work experience and pedagogical tact.

Generalization and scientific analysis of the extensive and valuable experience accumulated by heads of public education departments and school directors acquire in this regard special significance and relevance, creating the prerequisites for further improvement of the style and methods of managing educational institutions.

The leadership style depends both on objective factors (working conditions, the specifics of the tasks being solved, the level of development of the team) and on subjective factors (personality characteristics of the leader, the degree of his preparedness, etc.).

The question of leadership methods is closely related to the question of work style, which is a set of methods that are most typical for a given person in solving certain tasks and problems that arise in the process of leadership activities.

Experts in the field of management theory and social psychology identify three main leadership styles - authoritarian, liberal and democratic. Of course, any of these styles is rarely found in its pure form; in practice, there are many shades and transitional forms, but every leader “gravitates” to one style or another.

The authoritarian style is based on the widespread use of primarily administrative methods. An autocratic leader often makes decisions individually, without taking into account the opinions of public organizations and subordinates. He is confident in his infallibility, places special hopes on the power of orders, strives to concentrate all power in his hands, considering it inappropriate to transfer part of his powers to employees of the management apparatus.

Often, the desire for autocratic methods of leadership leads to voluntarism and bureaucracy, to the adoption of unfounded decisions, gives rise to a formal attitude towards their duties in subordinates, pushes them to work for the sake of a “tick”, for the sake of “inflated” interest and imaginary well-being.

However, it would be wrong to consider the authoritarian style an “absolute evil.” There are situations when the use of autocratic methods as a temporary measure turns out to be completely justified - insufficient competence of subordinates, the absence of a single cohesive team, the presence of serious shortcomings in the work of the apparatus and subordinate institutions, i.e. deficiencies that require decisive and immediate action to eliminate.

It should be noted that in the management of public education, elements of an authoritarian style that suppresses initiative and inhibits creative searches can have an extremely narrow scope of application.

The liberal style is characterized by the absence of a focused and effective leadership system. A liberal style leader is usually afraid of responsibility.

concern for the consequences of decisions made, seeks to hide behind the screen of boundless collegiality, endless discussions, connections, and agreements. He does not know how to show proper adherence to principles and exactingness, often refuses previously made decisions, and does not have his own opinion. At best, a liberal-style leader is useless (issues are resolved without his active participation); at worst, he can cause serious damage to the business and ruin the work of the apparatus.

The most consistent with management principles is the democratic style of leadership, which is based on the correct combination of collegiality and unity of command, and presupposes the active participation of public organizations and all teachers in making management decisions at the school.

The solution to management issues depends on the ability of school leaders and teachers to creatively use the latest achievements of science and best practices, on the ability to create the necessary conditions for the introduction of information technology in the school, on the relationships that have developed in the team, on the activity of teachers and students in educational and educational work.

In small schools with only 5-6 teachers, the director directly manages all school employees.

The largest schools operate on a linear system. The director exercises leadership through his assistants.

In universities and large complexes there is a functional management system: there is an educational part that conducts educational work, a scientific part that manages the scientific research of teachers, and an economic part that provides finances, furniture, and aids for the educational process.

The success of management with a systems approach depends on:

planning the work of the school, correct organization, ranking according to the degree of importance of the goals of the educational process and training of specialists;

placement of personnel and establishment of connections across subsystems and “conducting” of these connections;

establishing an operational information system! within the school and the effectiveness of feedback;

depth and comprehensiveness of pedagogical analysis and timely assistance in order to prevent or promptly eliminate deficiencies;

creating conditions for the introduction of NOT in the work practice of all employees and students;

The presence of the necessary psychological microclimate in the team;

Qualifications and experience of school leaders and the system for improving pedagogical skills and professional training of teachers.

The school meets all the requirements of a complex dynamic system. It is characterized by a certain structural complexity, a long duration of many interacting transition processes occurring in it, and the complexity and diversity of tasks and goals. It clearly identifies three main interrelated parties; functional, structural and informational.

Any system is a collection of interacting components, the functional activity of which is aimed at achieving set goals. The school as a system is a unity of various internally related and significantly dependent components, each of which is usually included not in one, but in several adjacent systems.

The structure of the system can be represented in different ways. The school as a system is multistructural. It can be divided into subsystems, and the latter into elements. An element should be understood as a component or link of the educational process, the internal system of which is not taken into account. However, the management process takes into account its essential characteristics that affect other elements or the entire system. The school is divided, as we noted above, into two main interacting systems (subsystems) - managed and controlling, which in turn are divided into smaller systems (or subsystems).

The management system in a school is a combination of administrative and economic units and various bodies of functional manifestation of the teaching and student teams. Each element included in the control system is at the same time its structure-forming part.

A managed system represents the unity of its constituent systems (or subsystems) of educational, educational, methodological, extracurricular work, financial and economic services, etc., which in turn represent a set of elements, each of which can be considered as an independent system.

In controlled and control systems, there is a complex dependence of the part on the whole and the whole on its part. In the process of purposeful influence on the educational process, relationships arise not only between the control and controlled systems, but also within each of them.

Each of the elements exists, functions and develops based on the goals and objectives of the system as a whole. A system is greater than the sum of its parts. At the same time, each individual element in the system acquires a new quality and meaning.

In addition to the functional interaction between systems and their constituent elements, there are external influences that positively or negatively affect the educational process.

An analysis of the school as a system shows that it is characterized by a continuous change of states, a change in the nature of connections between elements determined by the goals and objectives of the educational process in each age group of students.

In relation to school, management is an influence based on scientific principles and methods and aimed at the optimal organization of the educational process, ensuring the most complete correspondence of the achieved results with the set goal.

The main functions of management include analysis and planning, organization and control, coordination and stimulation.

Analysis is the foundation on which the entire system of planning and organizing the educational process rests.

Planning, as one of the most important management functions, includes determining the most appropriate ways to achieve set goals. It is designed to generate plans, projects, programs, standards, standards, criteria, etc.

Organization is the formation and establishment of relatively stable relationships in managed and control systems that operate and develop as one whole. It is designed to generate the structure of the school as an organization, order, regime, content of work and tasks.

Coordination presupposes high efficiency in establishing harmony between all links and directions of the educational process, between the control and managed systems, changing attitudes, motivation, involvement in work, and increasing creative activity.

Control is the active stage of the management process, when achieved results are compared with what was planned. The basis of the entire system of control measurements (quantitative and qualitative) is feedback.

It can even be argued that control is intended to generate knowledge about the state of affairs, their adjustment according to the relationship from the desired direction and level.

Stimulation is a system of measures aimed at creating a creative teaching staff and active, purposeful activities of students.

The educational process can proceed with varying degrees of effectiveness. Much also depends on how purposefully and skillfully favorable conditions are created for the optimal and coordinated functioning of all components and links of the educational process for mental development, physical and labor, moral and aesthetic education of schoolchildren, etc.

The most important pattern of management is unity in the final goals and objectives of administrative, pedagogical, family and social influence and the process of shaping the personality of schoolchildren.

For this pattern to manifest itself, coordination of the actions of schools, families and the public is very important. There are many connections between them, and these connections must be included in the process of educating the younger generation.

This means that each management act, manifesting itself in its specific forms and methods, must be imbued with pedagogical expediency, be based on an appropriate management system and appropriate

to contribute not only to a specific task, but also to the entire complex of educational tasks.

In modern management theory, a special place is occupied by the so-called systems approach. It presupposes conscious and planned management. Connections between the spheres of management are established, the main goal is put forward, then, in accordance with it, private intermediate goals are formed, tasks are set, ways and deadlines for their solution are thought out, forces are distributed, funds are allocated, work is organized, control and correction are carried out. Schematically, the systems approach can be represented as the following chain: goal - resources - plan - decision - implementation - control and correction.

For clarity, let's depict this on the diagram (p. 527).

Decision-making. The so-called management decision occupies an important place in the management system. All activities of the school staff depend on the decisions of the school leader. Decisions must be carefully thought through, all possible consequences must be weighed, goals must be clearly set and ways of achieving them must be thought through.

These can be organizational and administrative decisions designed for a long period, strategically important and determining the activities of almost the entire school staff. Such decisions include: school planning, routine; instructions, rules, Charters, methodological recommendations, lengthy assignments.

These can be short-term solutions: orders, instructions, advice, suggestions.

The second type of decisions: economic, related to the material support of the school. This includes a lease agreement, rules for the creation of paid additional services, the organization of labor camps, workshops, and cooperatives. Drawing up estimates, working with sponsors, etc.

The third type of decisions: socio-psychological, associated with moral influence. These are thanks, reprimands, as well as materials and recommendations for studying, describing and implementing best practices.

Here is an approximate scheme for preparing a solution (see page 528).

Systematic approach to school management

systemic approach - conscious, between spheres of management

systematic, regulated management, establishment of natural connections

Control I

main goal

Private intermediate goals

Planning, defining main tasks

The success of school management with a systematic approach depends on "

deadlines for their resolution

Planning the work of the school, correctly setting, ranking according to the degree of importance of the goals of the educational process

Distribution of forces

Arrangement of personnel and establishment of connections between subsystems and conducting ethnmn:vyazamn

Allocation of funds and determination of solution methods

Establishing a system of internal school operational information and effectiveness of feedback

Organizational actions, implementation of decisions

Depth and comprehensiveness of pedagogical analysis and timely assistance in order to prevent and eliminate deficiencies

Control and correction

Achieving the goal

building conditions for the rational organization of work at school

__]Creating the necessary psychological microclimate at school

Qualification of experience of school leaders and systems for improving the pedagogical skills of teachers

Scheme of preparation and decision making

determination of the purpose of the decision

Study of regulatory information

REQUIREMENTS,

required for management decisions

[Examining Science Data

learning best practices

(Obtaining internal current information I

[Obtaining resource data for solution I

(Definition of criteria for assessing the optimal results of solution I-

[Analysis of all information, its positive and negative sides I

development of solution variations and evaluation of their results J

Elopement

;choice of the main link

1Objectivity

the validity of decision making and implementation

Pedagogical feasibility

Meeting with employees of the management system and trade union organization

1MAKING A DECISION

Systematic approach to production

Efficiency, specificity, clarity of presentation

[Formation of a decision, its execution in the form of a document

Fradkin F.A.

Lectures on the history of Russian pedagogy

PETER FEDOROVICH KAPTEREV AND PSYCHOLOGY-ORIENTED PEDAGOGY

P.F. Kapterev belonged to the Russian teachers who were widely known during their lifetime and stood at the head of scientific directions, but after death their names were forgotten and their works were not published. This was due to the fact that in the 1920s Kapterev’s ideas about school autonomy and the independence of teacher education from the state clearly did not coincide with the dominant line of thought. In the 30-40s, Kapterev’s pedagogical views seemed suspicious, because they contained a lot of psychology and pedology. In subsequent decades, the authors of articles and textbooks drew handfuls of his pedagogical ideas, but they tried not to mention the scientist’s name. For the first time, sixty years after the death of the scientist, in 1982, his selected pedagogical works were published.

Continuer of traditions N.I. Pirogov, K.D. Ushinsky, a scientist who knew European languages ​​very well, turned to the best of what was created in Russia and the West during this period in the fundamental work “Didactic Essays. Theory of Education" is central to the chapter "The educational process - its psychology". It is all permeated with the idea that psychology contributes to the best scientific substantiation of pedagogy and the depth of practical conclusions. According to Kapterev, pedagogy is an applied science that answers the question of how to teach and raise children. Psychology is a fundamental science about the child’s psyche and its development and appears basic in relation to pedagogy. Logic, physiology, philology, and sociology are also fundamental to pedagogy, according to Kapterev’s point of view.

BIOGRAPHY

P.F. Kapterev was born in 1849 near Moscow into the family of a priest. He went all the way prepared to occupy the highest positions in the church hierarchy - theological school, theological seminary, and the Moscow Theological Academy. But unexpectedly for everyone, the promising, youngest teacher of philosophy at the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary resigns and devotes himself to secular activities in the field of education. This step, condemned by parents and friends, marked the beginning of the birth of a talented Russian teacher who contributed to the development of psychological and pedagogical problems and preparation for mass education in Russia. The scientist himself explained his action by saying that in a country where four-fifths of the population is illiterate, “every decent person should do the most necessary things in times of crisis in the life of society.”

Kapterev became a teacher of pedagogy, psychology, and logic at leading pedagogical institutions in St. Petersburg. The influence of the teacher, based on the latest achievements of anthropological sciences, was very strong at the beginning of the century. He laid down the tradition of promoting scientific achievements in the province. Speaking as a lecturer at teacher courses, the scientist did a lot to theoretically substantiate education in the zemstvo school with the goal of “enlightening all of Rus' with school and teaching.” Kapterev is the author of fundamental pedagogical works, which are based on the idea of ​​psychological justification of pedagogy. His complete collection of works would have amounted to many volumes, but, unfortunately, it remained unfulfilled.

Kapterev’s position as a zemstvo figure, educator, and promoter of natural science knowledge caused a confrontation with the authorities. He was persecuted for “teaching crazy pedagogy”, far from the prevailing official doctrine, and was accused of undermining morality and atheism. He was then forbidden, then again allowed to lecture. However, despite pressure from authorities and police persecution, Kapterev maintained a sense of self-esteem and independence. He performed with his visor open, not fearing anyone. He accused the author of the anonymous letter of ignorance, and Kapterev reproached the members of the commission that checked his work for partiality. Kapterev’s contemporary F.P. Stepun well explained the phenomenon of intellectuals’ resistance to external pressure in pre-revolutionary Russia. “Returning to my home this morning along the rowan alley... I fondly remembered pre-revolutionary Russia, how rich it was in people tailored and sewn to special order. Every person is a model. Not a hint of a standardized man of Western European civilization. And this is in a country of monarchical despotism, which suppresses individual freedom and throws hundreds of young people into prison and exile. What a huge difference in this respect there is between tsarism and Bolshevism, this first factory of uniform people in modern history. Obviously, state despotism is not as terrible for its political prohibitions as for its cultural and pedagogical tasks, its plans for a new person and a new humanity. For all its despotism, Tsarist Russia did not educate anyone spiritually and did not order anything to anyone in the spiritual and cultural sphere. This role was beyond her.” (Stepun F. Russia on the eve of 1914 // Questions of Philosophy. 1992. No. 9. P. 95-96).

The most difficult time for Kapterev’s life came after October. He could not stay in Petrograd. Here he faced death from hunger and cold, or arrest for disagreeing with the policies of the leadership of the department of northern communes. The outbreak of a hostile campaign against the old professors, who did not accept the October Revolution and actively opposed the policy of the Soviet government in the field of secondary and higher education, led to the fact that Kapterev was forced to leave for the Voronezh province. Together with Kapterev, a whole group of famous scientists moved to Voronezh from Petrograd - S.N. Vvedensky, K.K. Saint-Hilaire, A.I. Protopopov.

This was internal emigration from the center to the province in order to save life and educate students. However, here too Kapterev had to defend his position. All his life he fought for openness and freedom of education for everyone and thought that this problem had been solved. In any case, in the Bolshevik declarations, education was proclaimed accessible and universal. In reality, nothing of the kind happened. First of all, places in universities were provided to communists and Komsomol members, then workers and the poorest peasants, and only representatives of other social groups were accepted for the remaining places. The most important was the exam on political literacy. To students who were deprived of the foundation of education and had no taste for systematic hard work, the old professor seemed not just a “counter”, but a fragment of the hated old world. In the post-revolutionary atmosphere, saturated with politics and intransigence, Kapterev spoke from the pulpit about science, as intrepid as a court, which establishes eternal and immutable truths. For him, science seemed to be a temple of cultural ideals and a workshop for creating tools for the objective study of the pedagogical process. Science can flourish if it is far from politics, and no party should interfere in its affairs, the scientist argued. The very academic and fundamental nature of lecturing, the thoroughness of working with the material was incomprehensible and alien to the listeners, whose thinking was formed at rallies. His dissatisfaction with the level of students' training and his proposal to create preparatory courses caused shock and suspicions of sabotage. Students were summoned to the authorities and asked whether the old professor was introducing anti-materialist, anti-Marxist, anti-Soviet ideas in his lectures. GPU employees acted in accordance with Dzerzhinsky’s instructions to organize surveillance of the university’s teaching staff. “Every intellectual should have a case. Each group and subgroup must be covered by fully competent comrades, among whom these groups must be distributed by our department. The information must be checked from different angles so that our conclusion is unmistakable and irrevocable, which has not happened so far due to the haste and one-sidedness of the coverage.” (Topolyansky V. There should be a case for every intellectual // Literary newspaper. 1993. August 11).

The role of a “competent comrade” was played by N.K. Krupskaya, who wrote a review of the article by P.F. Kapterev, published in the journal “Pedagogical Thought” in 1921. Even the insert “From the Editorial Board of the Journal,” of which Kapterev was a member of the editorial board, outraged her with its protesting tone. It spoke about the catastrophic state of affairs in public education, about the impossibility of normal work of the editorial board and the publication of the journal on time. “If we add to everything,” the note addressed to readers stated, “the moral distress caused by the frequent losses of loved ones, either abducted by death or, by the will of fate, removed beyond reach, a picture of the terrifying situation in which we had to work clearly emerges before our eyes.” to our employees." Naturally, Nadezhda Konstantinovna could not like the topic of the statement, as well as the nature of Kapterev’s article “On school self-government and school discipline” published in the magazine. She assessed the author’s plan as a desire to “trample into the mud the desire awakened in youth to organize active workers.” After the first pages of reading Kapterev’s text, she had a desire to stop reading, because what could a teacher say who spoke with such hatred about young people who were eager to organize school life in a new way. “What a musty spirit emanates from all this and how distant P.F. Kapterev from modern youth!” - exclaims N.K. Krupskaya, speaking as a judge of the ideas of Kapterev and the magazine. Naturally, the magazine was soon closed, and Kapterev was labeled for many years as “not understanding the significance of the October Revolution in the field of public education.” (Krupskaya N.K. Ped. op.: In 6 vols. T. 2. P. 99-103).

Working as a professor at Voronezh University, Kapterev still saw the meaning of his life in the education of the people, devoting himself to people. All attempts by his wife to keep him at home after the first pneumonia, received in the unheated premises of the university, were rejected by him. A former student recalled Kapterev’s reaction to his wife’s persuasion to skip classes due to a painful condition. “Once, in my presence, Pyotr Fedorovich’s wife, Olga Fedorovna, tried to convince him to skip one lecture, hinting that his temperature had risen. He answered her restrainedly, but in a somewhat irritated tone: “Your philosophy, Olya, is very simple and transparent - less risk, more spiritual peace, but mine is somewhat different: if you start skipping classes, you will spoil the students, and young people need to study not for fear, but for conscience.” , and besides, after the lecture I often feel more cheerful than before the lecture” (Quoted from the dissertation of Z.M. Tambieva “Kapterev’s didactic views.” P. 16). "Bison" could not adapt to new living conditions. In 1922 P.F. Kapterev died in Voronezh from pneumonia.

METHODOLOGY

The psychological and physiological basis of pedagogy will make it truly scientific and will make it possible to increase the effectiveness of educational influence.

Kapterev’s bringing to the fore the idea of ​​an anthropological substantiation of raising a child that corresponds to his interests and needs, strengthened and enriched the “scientific” direction of Russian pedagogy. He argued that pedagogy without physiology and psychology is unthinkable. To become an ideal teacher, you need to have a good knowledge of the anthropological foundations of education. Kapterev highly appreciated Locke precisely because the latter “inextricably linked it with physiology and psychology” and introduced “solid scientific techniques, factuality, vitality” into the science of education. (Kapterev P.F. Spencer as a teacher and his Russian critics // People's school. 1879. No. 1. P. 14). Kapterev is rightly called the discoverer in Russia of deep connections between psychology and pedagogy, the creator of the “transition from psychology to pedagogy” (Ananyev B.G. Essays on the history of Russian psychology of the 18th and 19th centuries. M., 1947. P. 147).

Pedagogy is not an art, not a set of education recipes for all occasions, not normative spells and requirements on how to raise a child, but applied knowledge about the pedagogical process

According to Kapterev, Ushinsky was wrong when he argued that pedagogy is not a science, but an art, because it does not study objective facts, but prescribes how to educate, based on fundamental knowledge of the human sciences. There are different types of knowledge about a person: natural scientific knowledge about what a person is; knowledge of relationships with other people, knowledge in the field of art. At the same time, there is knowledge about practical activities aimed at solving applied problems. A doctor treats patients, and medicine develops knowledge about diseases. A politician solves management issues that are important for the country, and the science of politics synthesizes the knowledge of different sciences. Pedagogy, like medicine and political science, is an applied science. She synthesizes knowledge of the human sciences and, on their basis, develops practical recommendations for teachers. Pedagogy as a science is still very young, it is just becoming a solid foundation of positive science, but the well-being of society and the state and the success of preparing new generations for life will largely depend on its success. (Kapterev P.F. Selected pedagogical works. M., 1982. P. 46-62).

The debate about whether pedagogy is a fundamental or applied science has been going on for more than a century. Many scientists (A.N. Leontyev) insisted that pedagogy is an applied science in relation to reflexology, pedology, psychology, which are basic sciences. Makarenko spoke in defense of pedagogy as an independent science with its own subject and goals. Any attempts to reduce pedagogy to an applied science using the results of fundamental research have always led, in the opinion of V.V. Kraevsky, to catastrophic results. Only the science of pedagogy, substantiated in its methodology, theory, and methodology, can help teachers effectively convey culture from one generation to another. Recipe-oriented empirical pedagogy was alien to Kapterev. He rightly reproached numerous authors of “generalizations of personal experience” for acting like healers and shamans. Theoretically not comprehended, not analyzed in the context of physiology and psychology, the teacher’s personal experience is nothing more than material for generalization, comprehension and analysis of the pedagogical process. Defending this position, Kapterev made an important contribution to the development of the natural science direction of domestic pedagogy, represented primarily by the names of N.I. Pirogova, K.D. Ushinsky, P.F. Lesgafta, V.P. Vakhterova, P.P. Blonsky. Any attempt to raise the question of creating a school and pedagogy autonomous from the state began to be considered under totalitarianism as a political crime.

The pedagogical process must be autonomous from the state, from the church, from the class struggle

This idea, very clearly formulated by Kapterev, was defended by him until the end of his life. School autonomy included society's trust in teachers and children to solve their internal problems, and the rejection of mandatory external pressure, in whatever form it may appear.

As if foreseeing the processes of transformation of pedagogical science into an instrument of big politics aimed at manipulating the consciousness and behavior of an individual, Kapterev rejected the possibility of implementing Soviet, capitalist or imperialist pedagogy. Pedagogy as a science is universal, he declared; it records the patterns and principles of education in general, and not how they manifest themselves in a particular country. “If it is absurd to talk in the exact sense of the word about Russian physics or German chemistry, then it is just as absurd to talk about German and English pedagogy as a science. You can only talk about English or German education, i.e. about the practical implementation of scientific pedagogical principles in the conditions of English and German life of a given time, in other words, about English or German pedagogical art, about pedagogical technology" (Kapterev P.F. Speech // Proceedings of the 2nd All-Russian Congress on Experimental Pedagogy. Pg., 1913. P. 35). The autonomy of the school, according to Kapterev, meant its non-interference in the political struggle that gripped Russia at the beginning of the century. In childhood, it is impossible to consciously develop a political position, and any imposition of ideas “from above” has a destructive and destructive effect on the child. Politics should be left at the school door. Before the revolution, the idea of ​​autonomy of educational institutions from the state was ardently supported by the Bolsheviks. They demanded a rejection of government interference in school affairs, freedom from the dominant ideology, but as soon as they came to power, they replaced this idea with the exact opposite.

Kapterev defended his fundamental views and beliefs. Every teacher and educator has the right to take a certain political position. But the teacher, Kapterev insisted, should be deprived of the right to convert students to his faith, to turn the school class into a platform for political disputes and rampant political passions. School is a territory free from politics. Only an individual-public school can contribute to the comprehensive development of a child’s gifts and abilities. The entire subsequent history of the development of the Soviet school showed that Kapterev was right. The indoctrination of the younger generation into political life led to tragic results. Ten years after Kapterev’s death, in Soviet society, a child was encouraged for denouncing his father, who hid some things when joining the collective farm, and for involving relatives and neighbors in the collective farm. Under the conditions of a totalitarian regime, when the family was unable to contrast traditional norms and values ​​with the massive influence of mass media and ideological indoctrination, the involvement of children in political life became the basis for the formation of their aggressive behavior in the present and future.

EDUCATIONAL GOALS

The ideals and goals of education are the result of a deep analysis of the needs of society, all its estates and classes.

The goals of education are determined, according to Kapterev, by the social ideal, which is “set” by society, national traditions, and religious values. The emerging individual strives to meet the expectations and requirements rooted in the mass popular and religious consciousness. In fairy tales, myths, parables, and lives, the most revered qualities of a certain type of person are interpreted and summarized. The task of theoretical pedagogy is to comprehend and identify the ideal, to formulate the goals of education. The main function of the pedagogical process is the comprehensive improvement of the individual on the basis of his organic self-education to the best of the person’s strengths and abilities.

Dangerous, according to Kapterev, is the violent affirmation of class ideals. In different classes of Russia there are many similar, but also significantly different ideals. Contrasting ideals, emphasizing, for example, the baseness of peasant traits and the superiority of noble traits is unacceptable. Such a position, especially if it is supported by the government, threatens a social explosion.

Kapterev continues the tradition of national pedagogy laid down by Ushinsky. Kapterev saw the task of pedagogy not in opposing the goals of educating different groups of society, but in searching for a vector that unites the efforts of all social strata, aimed at progress and democracy.

Formation of a bright personality is the most important task of education

“Education will not become reasonable and true until then. until they stop looking for the foundations for it outside the educated personality, outside the independent and creative work of her consciousness” (Kapterev P.F. New Russian pedagogy, its most important ideas, directions and figures. S.-SPb., 1914. P. 82-83 ).

The scientist recorded the vector of movement of pedagogical thought about the conditions of a child’s development towards his inner world, intellect, moral values, and behavior. If in Russia in the 60-70s of the 19th century the problems of formal and material education were discussed, there was a struggle between supporters of real and classical education, then at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries in Russian society there was a discussion about the situation of teachers and students, their rights and freedoms, participation parents and society in school life, mental and spiritual development.

Each person imagines his own special world with his own feelings and intentions, unique thoughts and aspirations. Different people have different minds, memories, thinking, fantasies. Only the crowd is monotonous and identical in its desire to imitate. The task of the school is to promote the development of the child’s individuality, no matter how difficult this may be to do in the conditions of the “factory organization of school activities.” Various forms of organizing the pedagogical process should help overcome the tendency towards unification of school life. Among the most important, Kapterev names the requirement to leave children time to practice in subjects and at their personal request. Introduce more elective subjects into the curriculum. Encourage children to participate in clubs or partnerships. (Kapterev P.F. Selected pedagogical works. M., 1982. P. 414). Kapterev’s demands were contrasted with the developments of official teachers, who, preparing the student “for the future life,” emphasized the humility, obedience, and discipline of students.

The most important task of the educational process is to help children master the cultural heritage created by humanity

Human nature, Kapterev argued, is changed and improved by culture. “Long-term cultural exercises affect the organ of mental activity - the brain, not only increasing its volume, but also making it capable of more complex and subtle activities. Cultural activity carried out from generation to generation... produces internal changes in the structure of the brain, which, little by little, become hereditary...” (Kapterev P.F. On the nature of children. S. St. Petersburg 1899. P. 39).

Kapterev experienced the powerful influence of the Russian physiological school of Sechenov and his students - that is why he paid so much attention to the role of physiological processes in education. Undoubtedly, this was progressive and useful for pedagogy at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. However, as studies of the later period have shown, biological prerequisites are only conditions for mastering culture. The brain of primitive man has changed little compared to modern man. Only in human society are social mechanisms for transmitting culture created. Education and upbringing have the goal of equipping a person with knowledge, skills and abilities, with the help of which, in the process of creative activity, he masters cultural values.

Kapterev’s views on the process of a child’s assimilation of culture were fundamentally different from the approaches of official pedagogy. Conversations about the human soul that are not based on deep knowledge of physiological and mental processes are pure scholasticism, Kapterev said. Spiritual life develops on the basis of physical life; it is connected with the activity of the brain, nerves, muscles, blood, and is under the deep and comprehensive influence of physicality. All pedagogical advice and recommendations that are not based on knowledge of the physiology and psychology of the child are abstract in nature and bring nothing but harm to the child.

Directing the cutting edge of criticism against pedagogical officialdom, Kapterev protested against book-based learning and the separation of the child from the surrounding nature. It is terrible, he declared, that a city child gets acquainted with the natural world in parks and zoological gardens. Only then will his mind and feelings, imagination and creativity develop normally, when he is imbued with the power and beauty of nature. This focus on nature, understanding the importance of “natural” factors in socialization will become an important idea that practicing teachers of the “new schools” of Russia will learn.

In the development of personality and its self-improvement, the main role belongs to the family; only through family education can a child come to humanity and God

Family and public education, complementing each other, comprehensively shape the child. The family must take care of providing children with conditions for study, help them avoid bad influences, guide the reading of schoolchildren, isolating them from absurd and immoral books. Parental participation in school life should be mandatory. According to the assessments of the parent community, teachers should judge the impact of the school on the mood of children, their physical, mental and moral development. Kapterev called family education a “newly discovered area of ​​scientific pedagogy” and called for connecting the educational process at school with the traditions and customs of family education. Under his editorship, the first in Russia and unique in the history of pedagogy “Encyclopedia of Family Education” was published, in which such famous teachers and psychologists as A.F. Lazursky, I.A. Sikorsky, A.N. Ostrogorsky, E.I. Tikheeva.

EDUCATIONAL TOOLS

One cannot imagine education as the transmission of culture. Culture can be mastered only through deep work of the individual on self-education, self-development, self-education

The insignificant role of the school as a “transmitter” of culture is evidenced by the fact that the most gifted students most often do not receive anything from the school, Kapterev said. They usually complain that school has a destructive effect on their desire to express themselves in any field. The requirement to master huge, poorly interconnected material tires and discourages education. The most serious sin of a state school is the refusal to teach methods of work, methods and means of independent activity aimed at mastering cultural heritage. Only then will education become effective, Kapterev argued, when it is based on scientifically based ideas about the ways of human formation and the mechanisms of cultural assimilation. Education should follow the natural development of man and never get ahead of it. The desire to intensify the processes of human growth and development painfully affects physiological and psychological characteristics and can cause destructive processes in development. Thus, Kapterev came to the conclusion, the basis of the school and the source of its improvement is the self-development of a person, the application to school education of those principles and methods that underlie self-education and self-education. (Kapterev P.F. Selected pedagogical works. M, 1982. P. 357).

Kapterev was one of the first Russian teachers to raise the question of developing means of self-education and self-education of the individual. Following him, this problem will be picked up and developed by S.T. Shatsky, N.A. Rubakin, P.P. Blonsky. However, like most teachers of his time, Kapterev did not even realize the very possibility of posing the problem of “training ahead of development.” It was first formulated by L.S. Vygotsky, emphasizing the leading role of learning in personality development.

Any assimilation of culture involves three stages: sensation - understanding - action

Kapterev imagined the learning process as follows. Under the influence of external stimuli, the sensory nerve and sensations are irritated. As a result of processing the received sensation, ideas and concepts are formed. Finally, inner work manifests itself in the outer action of the individual. In the activities of children, the first and third acts are most fully expressed, while the second is obscured. In adults, on the contrary, the central point, that is, processing, is more clearly expressed.

With such a representation of the act of assimilation of experience, Kapterev concluded, all the activities of the teacher should be aimed at its reasonable organization. Knowing the mechanism of assimilation of experience, it is possible not blindly, but based on scientific ideas, to organize the educational process. It followed from this that the initial mental exercises of children should be associated with the activity of the external sense organs. The activity of the external sense organs, Kapterev emphasized, is the birthplace of our mind. Hence the high role of visibility.

Equally, and perhaps more important, is the child’s creative activity - his games, gymnastics, drawing, working with clay, wood, cardboard, crafts, preparing various instruments and equipment. The enormous success of the labor school at the beginning of the century was not at all connected with the fact that children began to produce a product valuable to society. The main thing was that work was presented as one of the moments of education, the result of processing impressions. Taken by itself, it gives little educational value, Kapterev emphasized.

The scientist created pedagogical knowledge about the child’s act of cognition. He could still say little about the process of processing external impressions, but he focused on the role of action, activity in the formation of a child, and this was new for his time. Russian pedagogical thought, addressing the problem of a child’s labor activity, struggled to solve the same problems as the world pedagogical community in relation to the peculiarities of the country.

The idea that a scientifically based method of education can be replaced by intuitive knowledge about the means of influencing a child is deeply erroneous and leads to a dead end.

The method in pedagogy, like a two-faced Janus, is addressed, on the one hand, to pedagogical science and carries within itself a theoretical justification for the teacher’s purposeful actions. On the other hand, the method must be mastered by the teacher at the level of intuition. Only these two sides will ensure an organic synthesis of the scientific and spiritual and will allow for the effective organization of the pedagogical process.

For the first time in the history of Russian pedagogy, Kapterev identified the components of the method of pedagogical influence. The method must be consistent with the properties of the child’s nature, Kapterev declared, following Ushinsky. The mental and physical properties of children, which fundamentally distinguish them from adults, should become the basis of an age-specific approach in pedagogy. It is equally important to bring the method into line with the individual psychological characteristics of children. What goes to school is not schoolchildren in general, but children of a certain age, gender, capable and less capable, coming from a certain class and living in a certain area. What is good for one child can be very harmful to another. The method must be flexible enough to accommodate all these complexities. The teacher needs to organically assimilate the method and make it a tool for working on solving pedagogical problems. Only the in-depth assimilation of the method by the teacher will lead to the creation of a lively and creative atmosphere in the classroom, conducive to the intellectual and spiritual development of children. “A billiards player chooses a well-known cue, which he finds “in his hand”; a man tries to make a braid that fits his shoulder; a Cossack adjusts his pike, a soldier adjusts his gun, etc. It would be strange if the method - this spiritual tool of the teacher - remained a dead instrument in his hands, alien to his personality.” (Kapterev P.F. Selected pedagogical works. M., 1982. P. 37).

Any special education should be built on the foundation of the general and serve its needs, meet the requirements of nature

Otherwise, a highly specialized education will suppress creative imagination, clog thoughts, and slow down the development of independence.

“Strong critical thought is the result of long and multifaceted work, and therefore the wider and more varied the general education, the better and more solid the special activity will be. Fear of theories, fear of broad generalizations is an attribute of ignorance and mental limitation; those who are afraid forget that practice without theory, specialty without general principles are insignificant, powerless, that any significant improvements in practice and specialty are created, first of all, by theory, general principles.” (Ibid. p. 424).

The development of the soul and the development of the mind should not be opposed, but considered complementary

Scientific knowledge is addressed primarily to the human mind; it is aimed at including it in various activities to transform the world. Religion addressed to the soul leads a person to God, to an awareness of the meaning of life. Religious education cannot be considered as a scientific discipline along with other academic subjects. It is more of a guide to life, an educational tool, and not a body of harmonious system of knowledge that students are required to study. “... With a strictly factual formulation of the study, we are dealing not with two opposite substances, but with two orders of phenomena, although very different and unique, but developing simultaneously and inextricably linked with each other” (Kapterev P.F. Self-education in the field of psychology / / Northern Bulletin, 1897, No. 4, p. 113). The problem of the relationship between religious education and mastery of the basics of science, acutely posed at the beginning of the century, received an original solution from Kapterev. It is quite possible to study natural science problems, seek answers to practical questions within the framework of scientific knowledge and at the same time attend church and believe in God. Science and religion reflect different aspects of existence, and Kapterev argued that they should not be clashed.

Women's education has specific features

In Russian pedagogy, no one has posed the problem of the peculiarities of women’s education as fundamentally as Kapterev. Life itself prompted the scientist to focus on solving an issue so important for Russian life. Women rushed into the traditionally male world of public activity, overcoming the skepticism and conservatism of the old regime guardians of the foundations. The expansion of the sphere of female labor required significant changes in the plans and programs of educational institutions for women. Kapterev theoretically substantiated the solution to this problem. The scientist drew attention to ideas about the nature and specifics of women’s perception of life, experiences, attitudes towards the world and the need to take all this into account in the process of education. The path he chose from scientific psychological concepts to the pedagogical conclusions that flowed from them turned out to be correct. Subsequently, joint learning led to the fact that the problem simply fell out of the sight of teachers, so Kapterev’s attempt to find a solution to the issue remained valuable and important for solving pedagogical problems.

The educational process should be focused on the unique perception of the world by boys and girls, men and women

In the consciousness of women the real environment and the human personality occupy such a large place that the course of education they receive must be strongly oriented towards this feature. The basis of the content of education for women should not be grammar and mathematics, but anthropology, natural science, literature, history, and the Law of God. It is in these areas that a woman can achieve great success, so the training course for women needs to include more observations of the external senses and serious reflection on facts. Particular attention should be paid to the strict gradualness of the presentation of knowledge, the reliance on clarity when presenting abstractions. Women have poorly developed creative abilities, Kapterev argued, which is why it is so important to appreciate and support even the slightest manifestations of this precious property of the human spirit.

Feelings of love, piety, religiosity, shyness, and compassion play an incomparably greater role in a woman’s life than in a man’s life. Although they are deeper and more organic than men’s, they are quite narrow and can easily degenerate into selfishness. The task of the educator is to enlighten and ennoble women’s feelings, to make them broad, alien to selfish interests, to give them a humanistic focus on social values.

What is valuable in Kapterev’s reasoning is the desire to differentiate the educational process depending on a person’s sexual characteristics, and to productively use the properties and qualities inherent in nature in the educational process.

No two people have the same talents

The widespread opinion that a child with little ability to study ancient language and mathematics is unsuitable for scientific studies in general is deeply erroneous. Many artists and scientists, who subsequently showed talent in various fields of knowledge, turned out to perform poorly in state gymnasiums.

Kapterev noted the danger of replacing mental labor with physical labor, and treating physical labor as a panacea for solving all pedagogical problems. “Handicraft labor is valuable, but mental labor is even more valuable: the abstract and dead bookishness of schools is harmful, but crude utilitarianism and craftsmanship in school are even more harmful. Let us not rush from one extreme to the other; we will demand from all work in school, no matter whether it is physical or spiritual, education, i.e. connection of this exercise with others that make up the educational process, its main points” (Kapterev P.F. Selected pedagogical works. M., 1982. P. 349-350).

GRADE

Kapterev’s merit lies in the continuation and development of the anthropological approach to pedagogy, the foundations of which were laid by his predecessors, in building bridges between psychology and pedagogy. After him, in the minds of the Russian scientific pedagogical community, an attitude towards the value of the psychological and physiological justification of the pedagogical process was firmly formed. Thus, what was started by N.I. Pirogov, K.D. was consolidated. Ushinsky, I.N. Sechenov search for the fundamental foundations of pedagogical science. Kapterev associated upbringing with socializing factors. The scientist established the fact of the discrepancy between learning and development of students, emphasized the problem of personal self-development, and gave the key to understanding learning as the most important condition for growth and assimilation by an individual of cultural values. He paid special attention to developing the student’s need to solve not only personal, but also social problems. All of Kapterev’s works are permeated by the idea of ​​self-development, self-education of the student. The teacher must rely on the natural strengths of the child, and only under this condition will education become a powerful stimulus for mental, physical and moral development.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Kapterev’s departure “into the world,” into pedagogy, education, and science reflected his desire to be useful to society in solving the most important problems. Much later, when spiritual religious values ​​are under threat, such gifted scientists as P.A. Florensky, V.V. Zenkovsky and others will accept the priesthood and leave science for religion.

2. Kapterev retained his devotion to democratic ideals and faith in education as a huge force for transforming society until the end of his life.

3. Kapterev continued and developed the natural science direction of Russian pedagogy, first substantiated by Ushinsky. The desire to “deduce” pedagogy from anthropology, and above all from psychology and physiology, permeates all of Kapterev’s work.

4. Kapterev assessed pedagogy as an applied science based on fundamental physiology and psychology.

5. Historical experience has confirmed the correctness of Kapterev, who warned about the danger of politicization of educational activities and the subordination of education to prevailing political guidelines.

6. The sharp contrast between the goals of raising children from different social groups and classes is the basis of suspicion and hatred, which finds outlet in cataclysms and moods of society.

7. Family education is not an “add-on” to school education, and it should not be underestimated. In an effort to lay the foundations for the formation of a moral person, pedagogy should be based on raising a child in the family.

8. Kapterev constantly spoke about the need to take into account the physiological and psychological characteristics of the child’s personality. He followed development and did not yet see the possibility of learning ahead of the child’s development.

9. Kapterev was one of the first in Russian pedagogy to draw attention to the role of actions and practical activities in the formation of an integral personality. He had a sharply negative attitude towards the intellectual overload of students in the official gymnasium, the underestimation of work, play, and art.

10. General education should precede special education and serve as a foundation for it. Passion for special education leads to the formation of narrowness in personality development, Kapterev stated, “The world of a man and a woman is so different that inattention To. him in the process of upbringing can negatively affect the life destiny of each of them"

QUESTIONS TO THE TEXT

1. Why did Kapterev leave the theological academy and take up issues of public education?

2. What problems are the main works of P. F. Kapterev devoted to?

3. What, according to P. F. Kapterev, will allow the creation of scientifically based pedagogy?

4. What new does Kapterev bring to the description of pedagogy in comparison with Ushinsky?

5. Why did Kapterev insist on the autonomy of the pedagogical process?

6. What, according to Kapterev, is the place of education in the system of socializing factors that contribute to the development of a child?

7. What are the stages of a child’s learning process?

8. What are the goals of education according to Kapterev?

9. What is the importance of the method of education, what are its functions?

10. What are the specifics of women's education in contrast to men's?

TASKS

1. How do you feel about this “criticism” of Kapterev?

“Kapterev’s statement is erroneous that in the educational process the teacher cannot be put in the foreground, but the student must be placed at the center (the influence of the paedocentrism of American pedagogy). theory of “free education”) The interpretation of the educational process as “an expression of the internal initiative of the human body” is incorrect, Kapterev’s desire to connect the rationale for the educational process with religion and nationalism, etc. “(Medynsky E.N. History of Russian Pedagogy M, 1938 P 390)

Why was such “criticism” needed? What did it lead to and what was it aimed at?

2. Analyze the text of the criticism of Kapterev’s concept and try to explain the conclusion of E.N. Medynsky “The feeling of love, according to Kapterev, is that common center, that focus that organizes and enlivens all other feelings; love is a positive and unchanging basis from which comes the development of all abilities that contribute to our improvement. The social meaning of these hymns of love is to distract attention from the class struggle" (Medynsky E.N. History of Russian pedagogy M., 1938 P 389).

3. Compare Kapterev’s thesis and Medynsky’s interpretation of it. Which position is closer to you?

“Not state and school laws, but the laws of nature, physiological and psychological laws - this is what is important for society, first of all, in the structure and organization of schools, divine laws, not human ones. The welfare of children is in the foreground. Therefore, society is a defender of the general humane education of children, and not special, therefore real scientific pedagogy is a requirement of society. The state is not actually involved in pedagogy, it creates schools and

manages them, but does not organize them pedagogically. Society does all this” (Kapterev P.F. New Russian pedagogy. M., 1914. P. 116). “Such a theory could only be born from a representative of the bourgeois intelligentsia, not satisfied with the existing system, in some opposition to it, but afraid of the revolutionary overthrow of this system” (Medynsky E.N. History of Russian Pedagogy. M., 1938. P. 388).

5. The ideal of an educated person P.F. Kapterev imagined it as follows.

He wrote that a truly educated person possesses not only versatile knowledge, but also the ability to manage it. He is not only knowledgeable, but also smart, he has a king in his head, unity in his thoughts, he knows how not only to think and act, but also to work physically, to enjoy the beauty in nature and art. This is a person who feels like a living and active member of a modern cultural society, understands the close connection of his personality with humanity, with his native people, with his former workers in the field of culture, who, to the best of his ability, moves human culture forward. This is the kind of person who feels all his abilities and properties are revealed in himself and does not fall and does not suffer from the internal disharmony of his aspirations. This is a physically developed person, with healthy body organs, with a keen interest in physical exercise, and sensitive to the joy of the body.

Read the description. Do you agree with her? How could you add to the description of the ideal?

6. P.F. Kapterev painfully searched for answers to the following questions: “Have the basic mental processes characteristic of man changed at all during the existence of mankind, or have they remained unchanged in their original form from time immemorial to the present day and will remain so forever? Over the centuries, does humanity only gain more and more knowledge, or does its very ability to think increase and improve?” (Kapterev P.F. From the history of the soul. Essays on the history of the mind. 1890. P. 1). How would you answer the questions posed?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Kapterev P.F. Selected pedagogical works. M., 1982.“Selected” contains articles by Kapterev on certain problems of education and his fundamental work “Didactic Essays. Theory of Education".

2. Kapterev P.F. History of Russian pedagogy. Petrograd, 1915. In 1992, the journal “Pedagogy” began reprinting the chapters of this monograph, which presented a systematization of the scientist’s views on the development of pedagogical theories in Russia. The book is permeated by the idea that only strengthening the role of society in solving problems of public education can move things forward.

3. Kapterev P.F. Article in the monographic study “Essays on the history of school and pedagogical thought of the peoples of the USSR. End XIX – beginning XX century" (M., 1991). It sets out the views of P.F. Kapterev on the pedagogical process, his contribution to the development of the theory of the pedagogical process is assessed.