K. LARINA: 11 hours 9 minutes, good morning, good afternoon, this is the Echo of Moscow radio station, Ksenia Larina is at the microphone, Svetlana Rostovtseva is a sound engineer. And we start our traditional Sunday “Parents meeting. Of course, all of us who are interested in the slightest bit about the situation in the region Russian education, continues to shake from impending reforms. A new version of the standards for high school has appeared on the website of the Ministry of Education, which caused such strong angry responses from the teaching community, first of all. And one more event that served as an occasion for our meeting today, on February 15, a round table was held at the Gorbachev Foundation as part of the Civil Dialogue forum, a round table on the topic of education reform, the point of view of the public. This discussion was attended by experts in the field of education, representatives of the public, teachers, school directors, journalists, and there were representatives of the Ministry of Education and the Russian Academy of Education. There were many angry words addressed to officials, and personally to Minister Fursenko. Of course, they talked about new standards for high school, about the lack of a state strategy in the field of education, about the fact that education is being replaced by patriotic education, and the narrowing of space about freedom of creativity and freedom of discussion, and about the lack of dialogue between officials and the school. Next I put a dot. So, of course, in the wake of this event, it was necessary to get together and finish what was not agreed, somehow summarize what was said. And today, in our studio, the participants of this forum, this discussion, Alexander Mikhailovich Abramov, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Education. Hello Alexander Mikhailovich.

A. ABRAMOV: Good afternoon.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Hello.

K. LARINA: And Sergey Kazarnovsky, director of the educational center, school No. 686, Class Center. Hello Sergey.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Hello.

K. LARINA: I outlined the topic, summarizing everything that was said. Since for me all this is the main thing in relation to the situation that has developed in Russian education, whether the school needs freedom. What I had in mind, I can list, the freedom of the teacher in choosing textbooks and methods, freedom in interpretations and discussions on literary and historical topics, freedom from bureaucracy and directives of officials, freedom of high school students in choosing subjects for study, freedom in choosing sources of additional materials, freedom in expressing one's point of view, freedom of the school from state ideology and political trends, freedom of the school in choosing paid services, freedom of the director in forming the teaching staff, freedom in personnel policy, freedom in choosing the form of passing exams. In general, in short, you understand, this list can go on and on. I think that everyone has their own set of freedoms, which today, if not completely absent, then this field for creativity is rapidly narrowing, and this is the most important thing. Let's start our conversation, how much do you agree with my call, after all, to liberate the school? Is this really the main problem today, given all the movements that take place in the Ministry of Education, and in general in public policy. Alexander Mikhailovich, let's start with you.

A. ABRAMOV: You know, I think that this is indeed the key problem. You have used the word freedom many times, but you have not given a definition, and I want to offer it. Freedom is the ability to make a choice, a conscious choice, under a given system of restrictions. There are always some restrictions, moral laws and so on. So today, the freedom of schoolchildren is proclaimed in the standards, you know, a completely artificial system of restrictions is set there. Let's say that natural restrictions are a good general cultural development. And here we see a completely opposite picture. All calls for freedom of choice, and it is quite good and of high quality, but for this there must be a reasonable system of built-in restrictions. That is, good courses should be devised, really good content should be created, learning should be exciting for schoolchildren, there are many conditions for realization, for freedom. And finally, the most important thing is that only free teachers can teach free people. And today, when our freedom is limited by poverty, there is a form of slavery. Today, when the teacher drags out such a miserable existence, and nothing decisively is done for this. Today, when any, even strange, directives come down from above from officials, and this cannot be stopped, you know, these are dreams of freedom for now.

K. LARINA: Inna, what are your feelings?

I. ZAVALISHINA: If we talk about standards, then they seem to give freedom of choice to the student, but this is not so, they limit this freedom of choice. If our reformers really wanted to give high school students the freedom to choose their specialization, then they would follow the path they have taken, and gymnasiums have been operating for many years, in one of which, for example, I studied. Leave for each student the right to continue until the end of their studies at school according to the general program, that is, in all subjects, as it was before, and provide the opportunity to study something in depth. But without removing other items. That is, we study everything, but something even more in-depth, then it would be great. This is how I studied, I am very glad that I was lucky in life, I studied in such a gymnasium. And what is being offered now is not at all the same, it is not freedom at all.

K. LARINA: Sergey.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Here's where I would start, Vladimir Melov said, I really liked the phrase: "It's not good that all such discussions are devoted to criticism of the Ministry of Education," he said. Therefore, I would like to talk a little about something else, because there is nothing more complicated than freedom, maybe only love. Very often teachers are asked: “You work all your life at school, do you love children”? I say it has nothing to do with work. But sometimes it comes up, and it's wonderful when it comes up. But there is nothing more difficult when love arises with your students. Because love is and incredible admiration, it is jealousy, and this feeling of betrayal, it's terrible that it can be. Here, freedom is just as complicated a thing, because freedom, as you rightly said, is the ability to choose. One little story from school life about freedom of choice. At the end of the 80s, the American theater came to the school, they were going to play something, they played a wonderful performance. And then freedom came, I could already invite them, without agreeing, somewhere. But, there were severe restrictions, which we talked about, that is, A - there was no money, that is, there were no such cafes, and I say to my wife: “Let me invite them home.” She asks me: “What are we going to feed them with?” There is a very important point about freedom. I went to a dumpling shop, persuading them to give me ten packs of dumplings, there was no choice here either.

K. LARINA: What year was that?

S. KAZARNOVSKY: It was 1986-1987. Here are these red and white packs, ten packs. But an endless fantasy worked, we fried them, we boiled them, took several sauces, and on the table were: A - Siberian dumplings, such and such. This freedom gave birth to a fantastic, amazing fantasy. Now I'm saying serious things, it's like in jazz, we say that absolute improvisation plus freedom. Figushki, absolutely rigid restrictions of harmony and rhythm. And it gives birth to amazing things, it gives rise to fantasy, sophistication, versatility, and so on. This is all I'm talking about standards actually. And I want to say one more thing in continuation. Yesterday on the Triumph of Jazz I was listening to the great saxophonist Josh Redman. And he led one concert, he joked in English, introduced the musicians, told the story of the creation of each piece. I watched in a huge hall in the house of music where all the graduates of English schools did not sit, but people absolutely understood what he was talking about, absolutely heard, laughed, and so on. This is also about new standards, other times have begun. Can you imagine, to this day, in textbooks, the English language, the dialogue is something like this: “Whot iz it” - “Iz” s pen.” That’s how idiots talk, you know, it can’t be, that’s all that happened. a student after an illness, the teacher asks him in good English: "Why were you not there"? He answers in good English: "I was sick." The teacher continues further: "How do you feel"? This is also a question of new thinking, which they probably tried to put in the standards. Let's continue further, because I told my story. Because when we say, we probably should have proposed in the standards, then of course, I want to read it there. But it turns out that it could be they don't know how to say it anymore, and we don't know how to read it. For many years there were standards in their first reading, now details have appeared. And in the first meeting that I heard somewhere in 2006-2007, it was code of builders of communism.

K. LARINA: Now there is so much left, because I check on the most controversial subject Russia in the world, which for me is just like a red rag to a bull. I read it there, there are some changes, but in essence it is still the same code of the builders of communism.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: You see, what is the difference, and the difference is for teachers, I'll move on to the next thing, that the terms are given here. A deadline was given there, communism was replaced with the Olympics in 1980, and, in general, this problem was solved. Now specific dates have been given, literally from March, something will be like this, something will happen from 2013, and already, fortunately for everyone, Fursenko said: “But this will happen from 2020,” and everyone sighed. You know, in your studio whole hour Yevgeny Abramovich Bunimovich tried to understand what Kondakov was talking about, he barely understood something. Teacher Volkov, he also found out for a very long time. It ended up that yesterday at Kira Parashyutinskaya in the program, Smolov simply apologized for the fact that ...

K. LARINA: They wrote rubbish.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: That you misunderstood us, and in general, this is already good. Generally speaking, what is happening, I'm very happy about it. Everyone says there are no newspapers, not that we are talking about education, happiness, this should be noted for sure.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Smolov apologized, but Kondakov did not, he just spoke very disrespectfully towards teacher Howes.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Do you want them to say in chorus that this is on Howes?

I. ZAVALISHINA: No, when the teacher was speaking, Kondakov told him: “You don’t speak here at all, you don’t understand anything about it.” I am translating verbatim.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: I'm talking about 80 percent of the conversations, I just want to talk about constructive things, they exist, we'll talk about it ...

K. LARINA: Wait, I also want one thing, Sergey here likes to use all sorts of examples of his own, this is very correct.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: From life.

K. LARINA: In addition to the document that we have been discussing over the past few weeks, these notorious standards, there is another document that receives much less attention, although it was put up for public discussion. I mean, a new edition of the law on education. And there are things that obviously absolutely contradict each other, because on the one hand, the very freedom of the teacher in the choice that I listed, including the choice educational material, methods, topics, curriculum development, and others. On the other hand, in the section that regulates teaching tools, it is clearly stated that you can study using textbooks from the federal list approved by the Ministry of Education. Even this one thing, which absolutely destroys one another, speaks volumes. I agree with Inna that here, of course, we are bought once again for freedom, but in fact this is an absolute profanation.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: There is always a feeling, remember your favorite anecdote, when Gerasim had already raised Mu-Mu above the water, and she said to him: “I see Gerasim that you are not telling me something.”

K. LARINA: That's why there are so many rumors. Yes, Alexander Mikhailovich, please.

A. ABRAMOV: You touched on a very important topic, because I am very afraid that the ardor that is shown about standards will not be as noticeable when discussing laws. The most terrible danger is in the law, which I read, is much less, which legitimizes all the lawlessness that was committed in the field of education.

K. LARINA: For example?

A. ABRAMOV: The Unified State Examination is written there, the standards are prescribed there ...

K. LARINA: That is, in fact, a step to the right, a step to the left, is that all, is it execution?

A. ABRAMOV: You see, here this law will quote everything that will be done in Lately that caused such a reaction in society. But I will return to freedom, there are two more very important circumstances, this is the freedom of tradition proclaimed here, because it is not necessarily possible to learn Russian and mathematics, which means that you are in primary school…

K. LARINA: Well, you are exaggerating.

A. ABRAMOV: No, I can prove it. But the saddest thing I can tell you is that all of us, tens of millions of people, we lost our freedom because there was a massive hostage-taking. You and I are hostages of that policy, and those papers that come down from above, and no one is asked anything. There was a colossal protest about the Unified State Examination, it all slipped through, but today the resonance of this has been preserved. In the same way, standards and much more are being dumped on us now. Here it is time to feel yourself as free people, and say: "Stop."

I. ZAVALISHINA: Yes, remember how it was with the Unified State Examination, at first they drummed into us the idea that the Unified State Exam would be on an alternative basis. That is, if you want - take the exam, but if you want, take it in the usual way. And now what, now only the exam.

K. LARINA: The experiment is over, Inna, please tell me, now the question is from the other side, what is called. And for teachers in their mass, we are talking about a mass school, after all, this freedom that we are talking about, and all the freedoms that we have already listed, do they need them? What are your thoughts on your observations? It seems to me that teachers do not particularly strive for freedom, they just like it more when they are told: “From these to these”, and that’s it.

I. ZAVALISHINA: For the most part, unfortunately, this is exactly the case. Teachers, I'm talking about the majority because there are exceptions, for example, I consider myself one of such exceptions, because I profess a creative approach in teaching, I try a lot, and I want freedom even in choosing a textbook, because I had to work in public schools terrible textbooks.

K. LARINA: I tend to notice that Inna teaches foreign language.

A. ABRAMOV: Yes, and I even wrote in my book…

S. KAZARNOVSKY: I didn't know that.

I. ZAVALISHINA: That when I teach lessons according to the textbooks that the Ministry of Education imposes on me, my children do not understand anything, they cannot do anything, no matter how I crucify myself, and no matter what I do. As soon as I give them my materials, taken from other sources, and work with them on the basis of these materials, everything is fine, everything works out, they are interested, everything is fine. But if we are talking about the mass of teachers, then unfortunately, we must conclude that it is easier, of course, under someone else's direction.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Look, what is the most important and main reaction of parents, and especially children, to the choice in high school. They are all afraid of him.

K. LARINA: Are teachers afraid?

S. KAZARNOVSKY: And teachers are afraid, teachers are basically afraid of freedom, that's what I said, they're just afraid. Listen, everyone is used to the fact that every step is determined, and they perform it without thinking. But remember, I told the story of how the prevention of pediculosis and lice took place, where it was written that this text should be given in the form of dictations and presentations. But look, the school at all times solved one question, what to study at school, while the children came with practically two questions, why do I need it, and what does it give me. What is a teacher's question, how to do it. And here three important things arise, the first thing is interest, not in Russian it is motivation. The second thing is the skills to teach, and the third thing is the practical understanding that we are now talking about. And teachers still only just understood how to give methodological instructions, how to give skills, when this and that. If we talk about interest, this is a very delicate thing, that's what we were talking about now, how to present it to them as interest and exclusive material. Again, what is the level of freedom, they have a lesson plan, and then improvise. Please exclusive material, the atmosphere of the conversation, to hear everyone, and so on, this is not everyone can do.

I. ZAVALISHINA: This is art.

K. LARINA: Yes, Alexander Mikhailovich.

A. ABRAMOV: You know, it seems to me that this certain lack of freedom of the teacher comes from conformism. The teacher and director build a system of protection against any bad decisions. At the same time, they find ways to make the appearance of performance, but I can say that all this has become more rigid lately. Here are two real anecdotes from modern life. As you know, an experiment has begun on standards for elementary schools, there are universal learning activities.

K. LARINA: They say that everyone is very happy.

A. ABRAMOV: This should be tested experimentally, and not in the presence of officials, and the authors of this project. For example, universal learning activities have appeared, there is an insane list, so in each curriculum the teacher must enter what universal learning activities he will develop in this lesson. Or another example, they themselves must develop educational programs. The proverb is this: when preparing, I will rewrite the program of a mathematics textbook edited by Maro seven times, and they will be happy.

K. LARINA: Yes, Inna.

I. ZAVALISHINA: I wanted to say a little differently why teachers are afraid. I know from my own experience that they are afraid because they have been accustomed for years to the dictatorship of the principal at the school, who, in turn, is subordinate to officials from above, but in fact he simply broadcasts what is sent down to him from above. The school, as a system, is very undemocratic, and undemocratic in that, this is further aggravated by the fact that in many schools, I'm not talking about everything, of course, maybe there are exceptions, I will only be happy about this. But in many schools such a cabal is created, the director creates with his girlfriends such power-hungry, with teachers. They seem to be her subordinates, but in fact they run everything.

K. LARINA: By the way, they give her gifts.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Yes, they give each other gifts, and the rest of the teachers who are not included in this inner circle, they are generally on the side.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: But now it will get worse.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Yes, but what will happen now will still get worse.

A. ABRAMOV: There will be a different payment system, depending on the so-called quality under formal criteria, it will depend on the director, and therefore directors are now recruiting effective managers.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Therefore, we need to talk about the reform of the management system at school.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Listen, this needs to be taught for a long time and scrupulously, you understand, today is a teacher, you go to class today, you understand that besides you, what you are talking about, they know God knows what. You must learn at the end of each lesson to say one phrase: "But there is another opinion." It's a terrible skill, it's a terrible responsibility to learn to speak like that, you know what I mean?

K. LARINA: Russia in the world answers your question in such a way that it is necessary to form in the head of the schoolchild before the exit, the ability to resist falsifications of history to the detriment of Russia's national interests, this is understandable. Form a view of the world from the point of view of Russia's interests. What kind of variability can we talk about here, what kind of pluralism, sorry for the rude word?

A. ABRAMOV: Especially when Russia in the world is studied in the classroom, and outside the window they see Russia in the dark.

K. LARINA: Yes, let's focus on the news now, and then continue our conversation. I will remind our listeners of the means of communication. SMS: +7-985-970-45-45, live phone number 363-36-59, and the tweeter also participates in our broadcast, you are welcome to send your questions and remarks to the address.

NEWS COMING.

K. LARINA: We continue our conversation about the situation in Russian education. By the way, I haven't said yet that naturally the public discussion on the subject of standards and the law on education continues. This is very good, the only hope for some kind of openness. And next week, as far as I know, there will be another meeting of the public council under the Ministry of Education, which includes, among other things, our editor-in-chief Alexei Venediktov, who has spoken out on the topic of standards more than once on our air. We agree with him on many things, although he nevertheless proposes to specifically study this ratio of compulsory and optional subjects, and to prescribe very clearly by the hour which subject how much to study, and which subject is a matter of prime necessity, but this is the second question. I would like to draw your attention to something else that we haven’t talked about yet. I am still struck by such persistent hostility that comes out of the mouths of officials at all levels from the Ministry of Education. I am just a witness to this. I remember how Mrs. Glebova every year, when she reports to the hotlines on the unified state exam, with what disdain she speaks about the teaching community. This is very visible, somehow so a little bit condescending, like: “They don’t understand anything, I always have to explain something to them, as much as possible.” And every time this meeting of an official with the public takes place, it is impossible to hide it. Even at the round table we are talking about today, the Gorbachev Foundation, we had an official from the Ministry of Education, Ms. Karadanova, present. Here Inna Greshcheva demanded some kind of dialogue, but I understood that there would be no dialogue, because these people are not interested in you, decisions are not made by you, and this is the most painful moment, it seems to me.

I. ZAVALISHINA: This is not even hostility, she sat with such a face, she showed everything, many respected people spoke, they spoke very passionately, people, gray-haired in years, were nervous, everyone was worried, all this was heatedly discussed. And at that time she was sitting with such a face, as if she had a player in her headphones, she did not see at all, and did not hear what was happening, and ...

K. LARINA: They interfere with her.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Yes. Then, when we addressed her directly with direct criticism, she simply ignored it.

K. LARINA: This is a general atmosphere, there is no getting away from it, the general atmosphere is vertical, which is established in our country, unfortunately. And we live in a deep conviction that they certainly know how to continue to live.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Therefore, what kind of democracy can we talk about.

A. ABRAMOV: Ksenia, I actually have an explanation for this natural aggressiveness.

K. LARINA: Do you agree that she is present?

A. ABRAMOV: Of course, but you know, this is a completely bad decision-making system. I don't know such specialists in education as Fursenko, Klenov, Glebova, and so on, but they nevertheless determine everything. You see, this is absolutely abnormal thing. What is the role of a good official, his role is to invite a group of experts, investigate the problem, choose the optimal solution, and put a seal.

K. LARINA: Are there experts there?

A. ABRAMOV: The experts are the ones they invite to put their great ideas into practice. You see, this is complete unprofessionalism and irresponsibility.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Absolutely. Let's remember something else...

A. ABRAMOV: Have you ever seen any of these high officials in a discussion, they do not answer.

K. LARINA: Unfortunately, no. I have already spoken about this here myself, I am very sorry, as they say in the Ministry of Education, that we are monitoring your program, but, nevertheless, I am very grateful to Alexander Mikhailovich Kondakov, who did come and talked with Bunimovich, I thank him for it is very grateful. I am grateful to Mr. Dronov, who is the editor-in-chief of Prosveshchenie, one can have different attitudes towards his statements, but Vladimir came and participated in the discussion. So there are people who can do it. But, unfortunately, the officials who make decisions, you are right, they are not ready for discussion.

A. ABRAMOV: I have a specific proposal on this matter. Because Muscovites are listening to us now.

K. LARINA: Not only.

A. ABRAMOV: Muscovites in particular. Now in the city of Moscow a very serious program of deep reform of Moscow schools is being prepared, a very serious one. Moreover, since the ideologist is Iisak Kalina, who was the Deputy Minister of Education, pursued all this policy, which is criticized. There is a very big danger that a deep reform will take place here, Moscow will turn into an experimental site for testing all these things.

K. LARINA: Alexander Mikhailovich, specifically, what is it, what are they proposing, what kind of reform is there, what does it consist of, according to your information?

A. ABRAMOV: According to our information, there are indeed restrictions on the powers of schools, this is the abolition of allowances, then an increase in administrative control.

K. LARINA: That is, what are teachers protesting against today, who are at an impasse?

A. ABRAMOV: Personnel replacements have taken place. The proposal is, let's break this decision-making system, and hold a city conference in Moscow, which has not been held for 22 years, with the election of delegates, with the presence of parents, and many creative people. And let's determine, let them tell us what they are going to do in Moscow, and there will be a mass discussion with expert communities about whether it is possible and necessary to implement this program.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Ksenia, listen, this is wonderful, everything is probably being said, but there is a poem by a Moscow poetess, two lines literally:

And the day was so hard and difficult

What, dropping soap under the bath

She said come what may

Indeed, it was what it was.”

A very good poem, but now it's about something else. Our children learn every day, we need to think specifically about how to work and teach them that, because to teach freedom ...

K. LARINA: And they study for a clean copy, comrades, not for a draft.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: They won't come the second time. And of course, everyone who understands what makes us all shake, it shakes children, we give everything to them. But, for example, there are very specific things, I want to say about this, what I think should be included in standard form. When General Degaulle was little, he came home, and his mother never asked him what you said at school. She asked him: "What questions did you ask?" She taught him to be a free man, to learn to ask questions. And today we cannot formulate this, God forbid that we put this story into the standard to teach them to ask questions. In general, this is just a technology of education. I talk all the time today about technology, because education, and Russia in the world, also has such a technology, if you want to talk about it, then it seems to me that we should talk about it. The point is that I generally believe that what is needed is not Russia in the world, but Russia in Russia, and I will tell you why. Because if my father had a healthy stomach, I would never have known that there are the cities of Esentuki, Mineralnye Vody, Kislovodsk. There are no Russians in Russia, because no one knows her, does not travel and does not see her.

K. LARINA: Also my favorite topic.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: And I would like us to talk about it. There is whole technology, according to which it is possible, without entering into the clock, it seems to me that this is much more important, and this arises the very one who likes it, who does not like it, a human feeling, which is an attitude to the motherland.

K. LARINA: Feeling for the motherland is when a driver feels a car like a person, a citizen, must understand the scale of the whole country.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: This should be a state program, of course, I said this when Alexander Anatolyevich Bykov and I began to do the fifth quarter, when in the fifth quarter children should see their country for state money. Similarly, for each class, for each school there is an individual program, and then they will have a completely different feeling. This is a concrete thing and very understandable, and there is no need to invent anything here. In this regard, I believe that this will be the right move.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Yes, if they are taken exclusively to clean tourist places, they will not see anything.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Yes, of course, we must participate, develop, and offer these things…

K. LARINA: All right, Seryozha, we have already gone through the proposals. Seryozha, what are your suggestions in terms of content, educational technologies?

S. KAZARNOVSKY: I'll tell you, or rather I won't tell you, Mikhail Lomonosov wrote it on the gates of his school. He wrote a very simple phrase: “Force to work, only in this way can one learn to read and write, music, gymnastics, the main thing. And without these activities, shame is born.

K. LARINA: Comrades, please, life safety, physical education, compulsory subjects.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Shame is born, like what we say spiritual and moral guidelines. For if you have not learned to write, then you should be ashamed; if you have not learned to listen, you should be ashamed; if you have not learned to do gymnastics, then you should be ashamed. This is essentially what it should be. The question of ratios, this is a question of community discussions, what Venediktov says, but today everyone is afraid, that's the worst thing that parents say: "The worst thing is the choice." We must prepare children for choice from the very beginning at school, and, by the way, if we talk about the standards for elementary school, they try to declare a lot there. But strangely, teachers also say: "Write us how, write down each step, and then we will understand."

K. LARINA: What about Alexander Mikhailovich's proposals to convene some kind of professional community, a conference?

S. KAZARNOVSKY: I think that first we should try to strike up a conversation. This is where the standards treaty begins. I don't believe in mass talk that something will come of it. Here is one television company, another, newspapers, we need a round table, a fairly minimal one for now, we need teachers to give their proposals, which are really considered. I don't believe in big forums where things are actually done. We will remove one, two, three, this is not a conversation. There are technologies, I'm talking about different elements and technologies that exist, including the study of what is called spiritual and moral education.

K. LARINA: Alexander Mikhailovich.

A. ABRAMOV: I repeat once again that extremely serious reforms are coming in the city of Moscow, they need to be taken into account, so discussion is absolutely necessary. As for the standards, I would like to take the conversation to another plane. My point of view is that you cannot organize a discussion of what has been subjected to recognized condemnation. So, there is no basis for serious processing.

K. LARINA: Is it better to remove this topic?

A. ABRAMOV: We need to remove this topic and stop the useless discussion. But we start writing for these people. It is necessary to do all this work again, to define what a standard is, now it is not known what a standard is, now the definition of a standard is a paper on which the standard is written, and it is written that the minister has approved it. But it has a function that it does not perform, it does not set the results, it is absolutely meaningless, we need to discuss conceptually what it is.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Empty words.

A. ABRAMOV: Maybe we should abandon this word altogether and return to creating programs, but then we need to accept and come up with a form. If the work continues in the same way as before, through a tender, when there was a negative selection of developers, then we will be dishonored with the standards in a year, for twenty years already and we cannot do anything. There should be a different system of work, for example, a national commission, we did this in the 70s, we have a lot of experience, but we need to take this work seriously, but we started discussing it.

K. LARINA: And why not just return to the profile school system, I don’t really understand, because the point is in this, in the standards for high school?

A. ABRAMOV: Ksenia, in the 1970s and 1980s I spent a lot of energy fighting for differentiation in the conditions of a unified Soviet school. So the pendulum moved in a different direction, and this pendulum began to destroy everything in its path, because every school cannot be specialized. The slogan: “We will give each student according to his profile” is not realizable.

K. LARINA: Why?

A. ABRAMOV: Can I say, for example, in a rural school, how are you going to do it? We have just discussed that abilities are based on a shared culture. If you exterminate other items, you interrupt. There are other solutions, the experience of the best profile specialized schools, here it shows that there is a good combination of an increase in hours with a deep development of a general culture. The whole problem is much more complicated. In addition, all of a sudden, on command, make all schools specialized, from where you will get so many teachers, laboratories, textbooks, methods, and so on, this is completely unrealistic.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: And as for the profile school, you need to understand what it is, maybe not all parents understand and listen to this. That is, a certain profile is set. That is, roughly speaking, you have chosen a humanitarian profile for you and for your school. There is a certain ratio of hours of a given subject, you will not see them again, and that's it. And I want to, we had a conversation, in particular, with Smolov, he is also not a big supporter of specialized schools, because, generally speaking, now a very good conversation was about what good schools are and what happens in them. The school has a coherent educational program, whether it be mathematical or something else.

A. ABRAMOV: And the leaders.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: And the leaders. Then the atmosphere of the world immediately arises, because motivation arises, their own theaters arise, and so on. It is very curious, there is a book by Ralph Elsin, he is such a Swedish futurist economist, in general, a businessman. He muses, the society is called the "Dream Society". What kind of people, experts in business should appear. He writes interesting things. The watch, translated into Russian as "Pavel Bure", costs a thousand dollars, the "Flight" watch costs $100. The difference in them is only in the history of Pavel Bure. That is, today we need emotional intellectuals who can come up with not nanotechnologies, but figure out how it can be sold, and this applies, among other things, to education. As for the best schools, I want to say again, we want to think that they will now have a different name, and that there will be no gymnasiums, and so on. They all have an intelligible educational program, which, as his work reproaches, is one premise, and an infinite number of consequences, but an infinite number of consequences are needed, and everyone knows this very well.

K. LARINA: Inna.

I. ZAVALISHINA: The vast majority of schools, I know this, people write letters to me, both teachers and students, people who have recently graduated from school, I myself worked in several schools, the vast majority of schools are the opposite of what you are talking about. And even if you write them in some beautiful standard, it will not be implemented. There are so good functionaries sitting there who just sit out their salary, get it, they are honored teachers, or not, it's just profanity.

K. LARINA: Inna, what is your suggestion in this case, if you change something, then, as they say, it’s already mental, so what to do?

I. ZAVALISHINA: I think that we need to follow a similar path, as Alexander Mikhailovich spoke about, first some discussions, and then really reforming the system itself, how the school is managed internally, as an institution. Because a school is really a state within a state, there are a lot of complex relationships, and all this needs to be reviewed. So that a teacher like me, and many of them, is not in the background, that I come with such and such a proposal to the director, and she says to me: “I don’t need this this year, maybe next.” I come next year, she says to me: "Oh, listen, I'm busy here." This is actually so, it needs to be redone so that she does not have the right to tell me: “I have no time to talk to you, I will not answer your question,” and so on. So that if the director did this, for example, I have the right to go here and there, complain about her, and tomorrow she will be removed from her post. Here is my proposal.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: And they will put another one like that.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Well, once they put the same other, the second time, and the third time already normal, they will probably put it. But in other countries this system somehow works.

K. LARINA: This is the main reason, Seryozha, you are smiling, in fact, what Inna is talking about, this is the main reason why young teachers refuse to work at school. Either they accept the conditions in which the school exists today, fit into this vertical, or they leave.

I. ZAVALISHINA: If a teacher comes in, he ceases to be a teacher, he turns into a rag.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: I will say about this, I do not see the effectiveness in these huge meetings, but I think that the path should be different. Standards were now created from above, what we are talking about, invented, and so on. But no one has ever come to these very good schools and asked how you do it, how you do it, why you do it this way, how you manage to achieve this mechanism. This is a very important thing, we could say a lot, including a lot of schools in Russia. Including those that already have management councils that understand what educational policy is, who understand how the educational process is built. A lot, you understand, but it's all technology, that's what Yamburg did at home, it's technology, it's not talk. He made a great exhibition at which I was with him, you heard for sure, this is technology, not talk. We need to see that there should be such a technology, but for everything, excuse me, this is a very important request, which is not clearly spelled out in the standards, nor in the law, this is funding. We tried at our school to make an individual plan for each child, how he would like to study in high school, we tried, we thought about it. But that requires: A - the masses of teachers of the appropriate level.

K. LARINA: Here at Rachevsky, I also know that the senior school studies according to an individual plan.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Yes, we need a new schedule, but it needs money, just real money. In the preface to the play "Major Barbara", to make it clear to you, Barbara Shaw wrote that the greatest hypocrisy is to tell children that money is evil, because it is the presence of money that can designate a person as a cynic, or an honest decent person, but it is their presence, not their absence. It is thanks to money that something real can happen. This question is not really written down. But one more thing...

A. ABRAMOV: I would like to...

K. LARINA: Alexander Mikhailovich will make it in time. Yes, say Seryozha.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: The brilliant leader of education in France said a brilliant thing. He outlined our point: “We told our government that what you allocate for education is not a cost, it is an investment that brings profit. And if you shorten it, you must write what you have lost in doing so, what you are losing.” This is a very important thought, these are not costs, these are investments that bring profit.

K. LARINA: Parents' meeting is taking place at the school, the director distributes to all parents such questionnaires, on which it is written: "List of paid services." Parents ask: "And what is this Maria Ivanovna"? Maria Ivanovna replies: "You know, we were all obliged to earn money." How directors understand the reform that is taking place today.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: And they do not understand how they collect, sorry. Moreover, they are given permission for 30 percent.

K. LARINA: Listen, we have to provide paid services, so we give you questionnaires in which our proposals are written, and you put a tick. “Offers” - parents read - “Mugs, rhythm, and so on, and preparation for the exam in the Russian language is a paid service. Preparation for the exam in mathematics, put a tick. And at the end it is also written: “If you have additional wishes, please help us, what other paid services would you like to see in our school.” Why, why, I just understand that they were just sitting there in the office, scratching their turnips, and thinking what we can do, how we should earn money, let's teach the basics of Russian literature, or Chinese, for a fee. We have one parent, he teaches Chinese.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Instead of writing a collective letter to the President, as teachers, like Sergei Volkov, that we do not want to earn money from the parents of our students. They are already ready to perform, they are already slipping you questionnaires.

A. ABRAMOV: You are showing that we need a serious open, professional public discussion.

K. LARINA: Poor people, they don't understand anything.

A. ABRAMOV: Now I would like to say a few words in conclusion. This story with the standards, it excited everyone, because there was a feeling that we were passing the point of no return, we could enter somewhere very difficult. Therefore, the issue is mostly very serious, it must be recognized that the school, in general, the entire national education system is in a deep crisis. The way out of this crisis is such that it is necessary to change the vicious policy. Until now, over the past ten years, for sure, we have had an imitation policy when key issues were not touched upon. Education rests on four pillars, these are teachers, this is the content of education, this is material financial support, and an atmosphere of respect for knowledge and culture. On the first three points, everything is in our country, it is obvious that nothing is being done. Atmosphere and respect, what they say about education, then you start with the proposal that the requirements in the standard, that the state channel, and this is the state channel, they would turn from the expansion of anticulture to enlightenment, to educational programs. So, we need to change the policy, we need a new course. For this, of course, we need a different leadership, we need a Ministry of Public Education, but let's work together to make a difference. We are in a historical time trouble. If this degradation of personnel continues at all levels, when the young are becoming illiterate, and the older generation is leaving either life or the country, then what kind of modernization are we talking about.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Of course, we can speak, but we are here on the radio, everything seems to be fine, but in fact they continue to do all this as they see fit.

K. LARINA: I think that the most important thing that we talked about, again, with Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev, again, everyone was talking about it, no clear strategy has been built.

I. ZAVALISHINA: But it seems to me that it is built.

K. LARINA: No, for some reason I'm sure that it doesn't exist.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Ksenia, it’s a simple thing, do the new standards developers understand what they are doing today, that when new standards are introduced, the audience program will be canceled, and this issue is not being resolved, it has nothing to do with what is prescribed. You see, that is, a lot of things that were impossible. Here's what I've brought now is a list of 45 incomplete public events that are delegated at the school, starting with life safety drawings.

K. LARINA: Where does everything come from?

S. KAZARNOVSKY: This comes to me every day at school.

K. LARINA: From the department?

S. KAZARNOVSKY: The administration is there. Here are 45, divide by a quarter, how much per month, how much per week comes in, this is an incomplete list. It can't be, do the developers understand this, you see, that's a very important question. A completely different mentality is assumed, which does not exist, therefore it is also a difficult question.

I. ZAVALISHINA: I do not agree that they do not have a strategy, I just clearly see their strategy.

K. LARINA: And what, how can you formulate it?

I. ZAVALISHINA: To make education much cheaper for the state, that is, to invest in it as little as possible, this is the first thing. Because this is per capita funding for schools, which is why many rural schools are closed, because of the crisis they continue to close. The second strategy is the unification of everything, in a good sense of the word, the flattening of the education system, in my opinion, this is clearly visible. But there is also the way they lie. I can give one example.

K. LARINA: Yes.

I. ZAVALISHINA: Specialists high school The economies that are working on a new bill have already released it, they say that they are for the individualization of education, while they are also for the reduction of teachers. These are things that are absolutely contradictory to each other. Individualization of education can only be realized if a sufficient number of teachers are involved with children, and they are laying off teachers, there are not so many of them in our country, in fact. It seems to me that everything is clear, and there is no need to say that they do not understand something there. They understand everything perfectly, they just powder our brains so that we sit here and get confused about it all.

K. LARINA: Seryozha, your final.

S. KAZARNOVSKY: Yes, I have before my eyes the standards that were written on March 13, 1784 by Catherine II on education. It is very simple there: “To order in all provinces to establish one or two gymnasiums, to recruit students of merchants and other all ranks. And to impose a fine on fathers so that they bring their children from 6 years old, and after the end of the lesson years, they no longer keep them so that they do not hide from service. To put moral education at the head of education, the desire for goodness, physical health and development without any coercive measures, so that teachers and educators are assistants teaching children independence. A healthy body, mind, and inclination towards good constitutes all education. It is recommended to open windows twice a day, and to be in the open air as much as possible in summer and winter. Feeding the gaiety of disposition in children, it is necessary to keep away from the eyes and ears everything that is bad and disgusting, such as sad imagination, which leads to despondency, and stories of cowardice that inspire bliss, and flattery. Never leave children in the feast. With every teaching, keep the children for more than half an hour, and finish before they knock. It is difficult for children to have diligence, it is impossible to torment with fear, when they study at ease and voluntarily, they will study willingly, just like playing. Do not force learning, but praise for excellence. The art of teachers will be to make learning as easy as possible for the children. It is forbidden to force children to learn the Leg by heart, this memory does not strengthen, and it is easier to remember by repetition. Treat children like adults, in order to speak with them, use common sense and expression over the years, a stubborn pupil. Reprimand the children in private, and always with a calm voice, and always praise in front of witnesses. And this is the key phrase that every standards developer says, the last one I have in mind today: “And then we will catch up with the best European countries in all free sciences, and also provide children with a future, and so on.

K. LARINA: Thank you, Sergey Kazarnovsky, Alexander Abramov, Inna Zavalishina, our guests today, and an appeal to the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Education, open the windows at least twice a day, comrades. Thank you very much.

The draft Federal State Educational Standard of Secondary General Education has been published. The draft of new school standards was discussed with the support of the Education Commission together with the Russian Public Council for the Development of Education. The discussion was attended not only by members of the Public Chamber, but also by representatives of the Russian Academy of Education, institutes and schools. The document was developed by a working group of the Institute for Strategic Studies, the finished abstracts were submitted to, and the department, in turn, sent this draft for public examination.

“In modern school practice, no standards apply. Until 2004, schools worked according to the standards of 1998, but then the mandatory standards were canceled and they were replaced by federal components that gave schools freedom of choice. As a result, they began to focus on the market situation, on what is required today from the activities of the school in the field of spiritual and moral education, in the field of performance indicators for the Unified State Examination, and a number of other guidelines. But there were no general rules as such, ”one of the participants in public discussions, a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Education, president of the Public Institute for School Development, explained to Gazeta.Ru.

The new standard consists of three blocks.

The personal block is responsible for moral education, the interdisciplinary block is responsible for the social activity and sociability of the student, and the subject block directly regulates the process of mastering knowledge in subjects.

“If earlier schools were not responsible for the upbringing of the student, then the new project distributes duties and responsibilities between the student, teacher, parent and education management organizations,” says Margarita Leontieva, editor-in-chief of the Prosveshchenie publishing house, a member of the working group.

The draft of the new standard provides for high school students the opportunity to focus on core subjects and refuse those that do not correspond to the chosen profile.

As conceived by the developers, the curriculum will include compulsory subjects and courses (Russia in the world, physical culture, the basics of life safety, the implementation of an individual project by students) and “subject areas” for study by choice.

In total, the standard provides for six areas, each of which contains several subjects: "social sciences" (history, social studies, geography, economics), "natural sciences" (natural science, physics, chemistry, biology and ecology), "mathematics and computer science" (mathematics , algebra and the beginnings of mathematical analysis, geometry and computer science), “Russian language and literature, native language and literature” (Russian literature, Russian language, literature, native language, native literature), "foreign language" (a foreign language and a second foreign language), and "elective courses" ("art, or a subject of the school's choice, or one course from the compulsory subject areas").

The developers of the draft standard offer one or two subjects from each subject area for compulsory study. At the same time, three to four academic subjects from all compulsory subject areas are studied at profile level and three or four at the base level. The content of the subject area "Elective courses" should be determined by the educational institution, based on the characteristics of the region and the needs of students.

During the discussions, the experts noted along with positive aspects and negative ones. “The plus is that at least some standard will appear; it’s good that at the senior level, a student and his family will be able to choose which subjects they will study and which they can refuse, but, on the other hand, such a new subject as “Russia in the global world” appears, despite the fact that our school the program in the upper grades is already overloaded with subjects. Another plus is that in this standard “Native language” and “Russian language” are equalized in rights, but at the same time it is possible that in high school the study of the Russian language is not necessary, which means it can be canceled, ”said Gazeta.Ru » another participant in the discussions, the rector of the Moscow Higher School of Social and Economic Sciences.

When discussing the minuses, the main claim to the draft standard was the lack of a mechanism that would allow defining the criteria named in it and acting in accordance with them.

“The standard says that now we focus not on knowledge, but on the competence of the student, on his achievements in general, on his ability to act effectively in a non-standard situation; but how to calculate these landmarks is not spelled out, ”Kasprzhak believes.

Margarita Leontyeva partly agrees with the rector, although she believes that there is still a way out of this situation. "Everything personal results, including educational ones, are not personified. For example, how to measure love for the motherland? The state should develop a system of monitoring studies and thus keep track of what is happening,” she assures.

On the day of the discussion of the draft educational standard in the Russian Academy of Education, the issue of determining the quality of education was discussed. Heads of higher education institutions, leading experts, officials from the Ministry of Education and Science, and employees of the Russian Academy of Education themselves took part in the discussion of the draft concept for the creation of an all-Russian system for assessing the quality of education (OSOKO). Representatives of the education system have previously thought about creating some kind of unified scale that could give an idea of ​​the quality of education, based not only on the results of assessments of school knowledge and the Unified State Examination. But active work began with a directive from above. “On September 7, a government decree was signed, where a plan for the development of education was approved, in which there is a point on quality assessment. A working group was created at the Russian Academy of Education, which prepared a draft concept for creating the system, ”the vice-president of the Russian Academy of Education, head of the working group, explained the reason for the start of active measures to create the OSOKO regulatory framework. However, as followed from further discussions, the concept is still rather shaky and does not offer any decisive steps. The participants in the discussion were unanimous in one thing: an adequate assessment is needed, which will be based on tracking the development of the student in all respects; but the mechanism of this tracking must be very correct.

The head of the center for assessing the quality of education, ISMO RAO, said that it is proposed to evaluate studying proccess in schools in three areas, which include educational programs, educational organizations and their systems and individual student achievement. Moreover, according to the plan of the developers, not only representatives of the education system, but also parents of students, as well as representatives of public organizations should participate in the process of monitoring and determining quality indicators.

In general, the concept was approved, but work on its improvement will continue in 2011. The rector urged the developers not to push away the positive experience that has already been accumulated, and not to take "excessive measures". “When forming a modern quality assessment system, we need to combine the positive experience of the past and modern developments. We don't need to take extreme measures because, as a rule, it turns out to be untenable. We must pay attention to daily routine work, with the goal of improving the quality of education,” he said in his speech.

"Teacher of the Year of Russia" is the most prestigious competition of pedagogical skills. Every year it is attended by talented, proactive and creative teachers who are united by a sincere and boundless love for the profession and children, the desire to constantly learn, improve, and grow. It is these teachers with their original ideas and developments that set the further vector for the development of Kuzbass education, determine its future.

Over the years of the competition's existence, tests and the procedure for conducting it have changed, but the goal has remained unchanged - identifying, supporting and encouraging talented teachers, raising the social status of a teacher and the prestige of pedagogical work, and disseminating innovative experience.

A.V. Chepkasov, candidate of philological sciences, associate professor,

Head of the Department of Education and Science of the Kemerovo Region

("Bulletin. Teacher of the Year - 2015")

This year, 35 highly qualified teachers who successfully passed the municipal stage took part in the regional stage of the competition "Teacher of the Year of Russia". The honor of our city adequately presented Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Kordeshova , history and social studies teacher at our school.

Ahead of our "hunters" for good luck were numerous competitive tests. Immediately after the festive opening of the "Teacher of the Year" they showed a master class, in the following days they held an open lesson, defended an educational project, and became participants in pedagogical debates on topical problems of Russian education. Of course, everyone wanted to win and everyone had a chance to win.

The topics of the master classes were varied: “Grammar is a tough nut to crack”, “No one is made for war”, “Economy of economy, or how business saves its own and other people’s money”, “Living word”, “Songs in the lessons in English in elementary school" and many others.

Absolutely all contestants coped with the task of the competitive test "Master Class". After all, every day they have to work with the most strict audience - children! All presented master classes turned out to be very bright, emotional and varied.

Second day competition for its participants began with open lessons. "French Lessons" is a story about a good teacher and, of course, not only about French lessons, but, above all, about life lessons and the lessons of kindness that the main character carried through his whole life.

An eleven-year-old boy, torn from home, faces need, starves. He alone, as he can, fights for his existence, without losing self-esteem. Thanks to the young French teacher Lidia Mikhailovna, the child discovers a world where people can trust each other, support and help (disinterestedly and imperceptibly). He, of course, learned French - the only subject that was not given to him, but most importantly, he received lessons in spiritual maturation, without which it is impossible to become a Human.

Perhaps these are the lessons we received from the Teacher.

The main characters of this day were teachers and children. Its scenery is the hospitable Lyceum No. 62 in Kemerovo, which, as always, warmly received the contestants. Special thanks to the students - they supported the teachers with their raised hands, burning eyes and competent answers. Some lessons even ended with applause!

On the lesson Kordeshova E. A.(Novokuznetsk GO), at 10 "B" students compared the political process with a clock in which all mechanisms must work smoothly. The reflection took place in the form of a flash mob. Each child had to evaluate and “take upon himself” those judgments that the teacher expressed. Ekaterina Aleksandrovna used the method of synectics - comparisons.

At the end of that day passed pedagogical debate, which continued the next day.

The leaders of the "Pedagogical Debate" were members of the regional Club "Teacher of the Year of Kuzbass" Oleg Viktorovich Petunii And Natalya Valerievna Nakoneshnyuk, Sergei Alexandrovich Ivanov And Natalia Vladimirovna Kleshcherova.

On the role of the teacher in modern school reasoned A. Yu. Lisov, teacher of physics from the Belovsky city district. Alexey Yuryevich is sure: “The teacher was, is and will be. The teacher is the wind that guides the ship. For a student, a teacher is a luminary, without which a child cannot do. Only a teacher can bring up a worthy student.” T.V. Kudashkina believes that all school subjects in the 21st century should be preserved, because it is thanks to them that the student forms a general picture of the world.

Summing up the conversation on the first topic, O. V. Petunias emphasized that the class-lesson system of education has a huge potential. This is the base, but the "stuffing" modern education must meet the requirements of society.

The second topic for discussion is Standards in school life: freedom or restrictions? ". The presenter N. V. Kleshcherova offered the contestants the format of a free conversation. Therefore, the discussion turned out to be stormy and open. The contestants were divided into two groups: some defended the opinion that the standard gives freedom to the teacher, while others are sure that it limits the activities of the teacher.

In conclusion, the participants of the debate came to the conclusion that if a teacher is talented, then there are no restrictions for him in GOSTs.

Elena Ivanovna Ilyina and Sergei Aleksandrovich Moskalenkov held the “Pedagogical Debates” in the first group of contestants. As a warm-up, teachers were asked to answer the question, what is a successful teacher like? The opinions were: “A successful teacher is ... successful students”, “... . creative teacher»; "... a person who succeeds in a lot in life"; "... this is a teacher who works for the result."

The facilitators divided the participants into two teams, declaring the topic of discussion: “ A successful teacher today: a competent technologist or a talented improviser?". Four contestants chose the roles of a competent technologist, four - a talented improviser. During the conversation, they expressed their opinions, for example, that it is necessary to improvise in a lesson, but within certain limits, which are limited by technology; technology must be known in order to improvise; improvisation is not frivolous if it is well prepared. But both the chosen pedagogical technology and talented improvisation should be aimed at the student. The ability to improvise depends on the knowledge of the teacher, the degree of his mastery of modern pedagogical technologies. The contestants proposed to introduce improvisation trainings into the teacher training program!

An active discussion was caused by the question of the second part of the pedagogical debate: “ Are widespread access to education and quality of education compatible?”, which was proposed by Inna Yakubovna Berezhnova and Natalya Aleksandrovna Povarich. The participants of the discussion spoke about the incompatibility of accessibility and quality of education; that quality education is impossible without a teacher, despite the wide opportunities distance learning. The audience was concerned about the education of children with special needs, the quality of education in villages remote from the city. Everyone was unanimous in their opinion that everything depends on the teacher!

The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees freedom of religion, including the right to profess any religion or not to profess any, freely choose, have and disseminate religious beliefs and act in accordance with them. However, in school life, problems related to the religious worldview of students and teachers are increasingly beginning to arise. Therefore, knowledge of the legal regulation of religious issues in education is becoming increasingly relevant.

According to Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state guarantees the equality of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of attitude to religion, any form of restriction of the rights of citizens on the grounds of religious affiliation is prohibited.

Based on the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, no one has the right to impede the spread of religious views, interfere with their propaganda, the performance of religious rituals, as well as the spread of atheistic views.

Let's consider the main blocks of the problem and legal norms, the knowledge of which is necessary for the teacher in order to: correctly respond to the behavior of students who want to follow religious requirements in the learning process, and their parents (other representatives); determine the boundaries of the expression of one's own religious beliefs during working hours; regulate conflicts between class students, colleagues and administration, build legitimate relationships with them.

The views of students and their parents who profess a particular religion do not always correspond to the knowledge about the origin, structure, nature of the world and man, the assimilation of which is provided for by the educational programs being implemented.

Article 4 of the Federal Law of September 26, 1997 No. 125-FZ “On Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations” establishes that, in accordance with the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the state, the state does not interfere in the determination by a citizen of his attitude to religion and religious affiliation, in education children by parents or persons replacing them, in accordance with their convictions and taking into account the child's right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Consequently, the parents of students have the right to demand that the school does not interfere with their education of the child in the faith that they adhere to.

Parents often object to the fact that the degree of assimilation of information on certain issues is taken into account when assessing the level of preparedness of their child in the subject, and make appropriate demands on the teacher: for example, do not reduce their child's grades because he does not know the generally accepted theory of human origin. .

The teacher can argue his disagreement with such a requirement by the fact that, according to the legislation on education, he teaches and evaluates the knowledge of the child in accordance with the requirements of the educational programs adopted by the educational institution and state standards. Insofar as the Russian Federation is a secular state, public education in state and municipal schools according to the main programs can be exclusively secular, built on the basis of uniform standards (Articles 19 and 28

Constitution of the Russian Federation and Art. 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation of July 10, 1992 No. 3266-1 "On Education").

The teacher should not and does not have the right to correct the requirements of the educational programs adopted by the institution. Parents have the right to choose an educational institution for their child that operates in accordance with the views of a particular religion, or to appeal against the provisions of the legislation establishing the obligation of secular education, as well as the content of programs in court, if they believe that their rights to freedom of religion have been violated .

Similar attempts have been made. For example, a high school student high school a lawsuit was filed against the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation with an appeal against the content of the programs in terms of human origin. In fact, she demanded to prohibit the teaching of Charles Darwin's theory as dominant and to consider it on an equal footing with religious ideas about the origin of man, to change the school curriculum so that evolutionary and creational theories of the origin of man were not opposed to each other. The court denied the claim, guided by the law.

If there were no relevant provisions of the Constitution and laws, such requests would be legally weighty. Under the current legal order, school curricula are mandatory for both teachers and students. Knowledge, skills and abilities of students are assessed in accordance with the requirements of state educational standards, and assessment criteria are the same for all. A student who has not mastered a certain part educational program, cannot be considered to have mastered the entire program and cannot be certified.

However, one should not confuse the development of the program and a positive assessment for the acquired knowledge.

A child can perfectly know everything that the general education program requires of him, but disagree with what he is studying, consider it wrong. For such a negative attitude towards the material being studied, it is impossible to lower the grade for the child. General educational standards provide only requirements for the presence of certain knowledge, skills, abilities. If the child owns them, he must be certified and receive an assessment corresponding to his knowledge, even if he considers what he has learned to be incorrect.

Despite the secular nature of our state and education in it, religion as an important cultural phenomenon in various aspects is studied within the framework of individual disciplines: religious studies, history, world art culture, etc. Both compulsory and optional classes are held.

A separate topic of consideration is the teaching of subjects related to the religious views of individual denominations. In a number of schools in ten Russian regions, the subject "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" was introduced as a "regional component" (a regional component of the main program). At the same time, in half of the regions the subject was introduced as an optional subject, and in half as a compulsory subject.

Heated debate flared up about whether the introduction of such an item violates the rights of citizens to freedom of religion. Supporters of his teaching insisted that this subject - purely culturological - should contribute to a better understanding of the history and culture of Russia; not aimed at initiation to religion; contributes to the preservation of national identity; introduced at the initiative of civil society (which is unique), which is interested in such education; well received by most parents. In addition, this subject does not exacerbate religious strife, since Orthodoxy teaches love, including for people of other faiths. Within its framework, knowledge is also given about the commonality of various currents of Christianity, about mutual respect for a number of dogmas in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Just as religion is separated from the state, so atheism must be separated from it. The secularity of the state implies the observance of the principle of neutrality, in which neither the state nor the educational system is an apologist not only for religion, but also for atheism, and does not carry out anti-religious propaganda. The moral and educational potential of the subject is emphasized, in contrast to scientifically oriented education. Recognized religions help to strengthen the norms of morality and social stability, which is not only a religious but also a general social goal.

Opponents also argued that the forced teaching of a particular religion violates the freedom of religious self-determination, the principle of secular education. There are fears that the teaching of the subject will become teaching the Law of God, and the subject itself will not be cultural, but religious, which can cause inter-religious, inter-confessional and inter-ethnic tension in society, lead to division, discrimination on religious grounds. Our country is multi-confessional, it is more correct to study the foundations of various religious teachings, and a person should have the right to independently choose which one to sympathize with.

Non-Orthodox families, as well as members of the scientific and human rights community, oppose the introduction of the course "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture". Selective teaching of the doctrine or religious cult of any one denomination, in the absence of the opportunity to study all other religions to which students or their families may belong, violates equality, is direct discrimination on religious grounds. In addition, according to the Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations”, no one is obliged to disclose their attitude to religion and cannot be subjected to coercion: in determining their attitude to religion (which is unlikely with mandatory study of it), and its education (which violated). It is prohibited to teach religion to minors against their will and without the consent of their parents or persons replacing them. These provisions of the law are also not taken into account when introducing this subject as a mandatory one.

The highest officials of the state (V. Putin, V. Fursenko) expressed the opinion that, nevertheless, a course in the history of religions should be developed rather than just the foundations of Orthodoxy.

In our opinion, the compulsory teaching of this subject is not legal.

Article 5 of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations" indeed establishes that everyone has the right to receive religious education "of their choice, individually or jointly with others." At the request of parents or persons replacing them, with the consent of children studying in state and municipal educational institutions, the administration of these institutions, in agreement with the relevant local government, provides a religious organization with the opportunity to teach children religion outside the framework of the educational program. Under the "educational program" it seems correct (based on the meaning of the law) to understand only the mandatory part of the program, excluding elective subjects (that is, those compulsory subjects, the replacement of which is allowed "by choice").

Thus, in general education school any religion can be taught as an elective subject. Organizational requirements for such teaching: mandatory consent of parents and children and the possibility of choosing a subject of study.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that training can be conducted by religious organizations.

In fact, this means that education is not possible for any faith, but only for a religion whose organizations comply with the law. This circumstance cuts off the possibility of teaching at school by representatives of those structures that are all legally recognized*.

This provision of the legislation was specified in the order of the Ministry of Education of Russia dated July 1, 2003 No. 2833 “On the provision of state and municipal educational institutions to religious organizations with the opportunity to teach children religion outside the framework of educational programs.” In particular, it was clarified once again that the initiative for education should come not from the school or the teacher, but from the parents of the child, while it is recommended that their request be made in the form of a written application addressed to the administration of the educational institution.

The press service of the Ministry of Education of Russia published a special clarification dated February 13, 2003 No. 01-51-013in in connection with questions that have arisen regarding the material set out in the letter of the Ministry of Education of Russia dated October 22, 2002 No. 14-52-87in / 16 “On the approximate content of education in subject“Orthodox Culture”, in which she explained that the subject “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” is not and cannot be a compulsory subject for all schools in the country or even for all schools of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. This subject can be introduced only in each specific school based on the decision of the Board (Board of Trustees) of the school with the participation of parents' representatives and implemented:

1. or as an optional subject outside the hours grid (after classes), for which students themselves register or (for elementary grades) students are enrolled by their parents. In this case, funding for the teaching of the subject is provided either by the founder in addition to the basic funding of the school according to the state standard, or by parents, or from extrabudgetary sources;
2. or as a subject of a school component from among elective subjects (at the same time, other students must attend other subjects from the list of elective subjects).

Thus, attending classes on the subject "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" is not only voluntary for students, but also requires the mandatory consent of their parents. If the subject is classified by the school curriculum as an elective subject, the study of which is mandatory, then the possibility of choosing another subject should be provided.

The position of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science seems to be correct, that Russian citizens have the right, on the basis of a voluntary expression of will, to demand an educational service - obtaining knowledge about their traditional culture and its religious foundations. The receipt of such educational services by them on the basis of the principle of voluntariness in no way infringes on the constitutional rights and legitimate interests of others, including the right to freedom of conscience, does not offend their religious feelings and does not interfere with the exercise of their rights. This does not negate the optionality (or electivity) of education - the right of some to receive this or that educational service does not mean imposing the same service on those who do not want to receive it. At the same time, we note that the right to an in-depth study of the foundations of one's religion belongs equally to both persons constituting the majority in a particular institution and persons constituting a minority, and the introduction of compulsory study of the foundations of Orthodoxy with respect for the rights of the minority would be possible only subject to mandatory study the foundations of other religious worldviews, i.e., provided that the school of choice could also study the foundations of Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, other religions, as well as atheism. The minimum necessary knowledge about religion for all persons receiving in the Russian Federation general education regardless of their religion, are taught within other disciplines (eg history, literature).

The class teacher may have a question, why should he understand the introduction of a particular discipline as an optional, elective or compulsory at the school where he works. This is necessary, firstly, because the teaching staff can influence the solution of this issue at the school level, and secondly, because the teacher is forced in one way or another to express his attitude to this issue in connection with the implementation of educational and educational functions, responding to the demands of administration, students and their representatives.

Article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees everyone freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, including the right to profess individually or jointly with others any religion or not to profess any, freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs and act in accordance with them. According to Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state guarantees the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of attitude to religion, any form of restriction of the rights of citizens on the grounds of religious affiliation is prohibited. At the same time, everyone is guaranteed freedom of thought and speech. No one can be forced to express their opinions and beliefs or to renounce them. Everyone has the right not only to freely transmit and disseminate information in any legal way, but also the right to freedom of teaching (Article 44 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

The federal law “On Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations” repeats the above provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and also provides that the establishment of advantages, restrictions or other forms of discrimination depending on the attitude to religion is not allowed, citizens are equal before the law regardless of their attitude to religion and religious affiliation. No one may be subjected to coercion in determining their attitude to confession or refusal to confess religion, to participation or non-participation in religious rites and ceremonies.

Often children or teachers express a desire to follow certain traditions, rules, rituals of their religion within the walls of the school. For example, to pray at a certain time, to wear certain headdresses, distinctive signs, etc. The ban is perceived as discrimination, coercion to renounce one's religion.

In such cases, for a legally justified choice of a model of behavior, first of all, it is necessary to distinguish between the legal regulation of relevant issues in relation to children and in relation to teachers - school employees.

The child is obliged to follow the rules of the school, in particular, during the lessons he is obliged to study.

The observance of many rules of religion is “passive” in the sense that it does not require active actions from a person, does not distract either his attention or the attention of others (for example, wearing an Orthodox cross). Of course, there is no reason to stop such behavior (if it is not offensive to other persons, which is possible if some non-traditional faith is professed, which requires the commission of actions not approved by public morality). Other requirements of religion are “active” in the sense that in order to fulfill them, a person must be distracted, apply his strength, attention (for example, performing a long prayer). Given that during the lesson the student must study and should not be distracted, he, accordingly, does not have a temporary opportunity to perform any rituals (this will be a violation of school discipline).

The time of change is the time of rest for the child. And to the extent that he does not violate the order, does not damage other people's property, does not show aggression, behaves safely - he is free to choose how to rest and recover until the next lesson. If a child, for example, would like to pray, the teacher should not restrict him if this action is not dangerous for the child (he does not pray in winter at an open window, in a traumatic situation, etc.) and his actions are not offensive to others (in In cases of mainstream religions, rituals cannot be offensive: they are part of national culture). In this sense, the child is free in the outward manifestation of his religious beliefs.

When considering manifestations of religious beliefs by a teacher, the issue should be resolved somewhat differently. If one or another tradition or ritual of his religion does not interfere with his work (for example, carrying a portable icon in his purse), a person cannot be prevented from such behavior. However, the fulfillment of the requirements of religion, which distract the teacher from work, is unacceptable. It should be taken into account that the work of the teacher is carried out throughout the lesson, the time of which should be completely devoted to the implementation of the educational program and issues of education (prayer at the beginning of the lesson, for example, is not permissible). Secondly, during the break, the teacher also does not have the right to rest, but must supervise the children, perform organizational, preparatory operations, that is, perform official duties, from which he should not be distracted by religious rituals. Therefore, in our opinion, their implementation during working hours for the teacher is impossible.

In any case, even if the school does not interfere with the performance of certain religious rites, it is not obliged to organize, create conditions for their proper performance for the believer.

Requirements to provide a separate room for prayer, since there is no proper privacy in other rooms, are clearly not subject to satisfaction.

A separate issue is such a problem as compliance with the requirements of religion for the nutrition of students. In particular, almost all religions provide for fasting and other dietary restrictions. The school canteen, on the other hand, forms the menu based on established nutritional standards, which are based on physiological needs and cannot depend on whether this food is produced during fasting or at other times, whether religion allows or forbids eating certain foods.

The school has the duty to provide children with food in accordance with physiological (and legally fixed) standards. The obligation to provide each child with a diet that meets the requirements of the religion he professes is not established by the legal documents for the school. In this connection, the requirements of parents for a separate diet for their child, of course, should not be satisfied. Providing a child with breakfast or lunch is considered a duty of the school, regardless of whether the child has eaten the offered meals or not.

In this situation, the parents must assume the obligation to provide the child with food that is allowed for him. And the school is only obliged to provide the opportunity to have breakfast or lunch, that is, to provide the child with a place for eating that meets sanitary standards and a time at which all children should have breakfast or lunch.

However, the school also has no right to impose school meals on a child. Therefore, if parents want the child not to eat at school, and give him food with them in accordance with the requirements of religion, it is unlawful to force the child to eat what everyone else has to eat, and to charge parents for the child's food.

If the parents forbid the teacher to give the child food prepared at school, but do not give him anything to take with him, the solution to the problem is no longer so clear. In our opinion, at least in elementary school, where school breakfast is compulsory, and also if the child attends an extended day school, when lunch is mandatory, the teacher does not have the right not to feed the child, and may require the parents to pay the established sums of money. The reason is that the teacher, first of all, must take care of the health of his pupil, and in this regard, he has no right to ignore the lack of nutrition of the child, since this adversely affects his health. Failure to comply with the child's nutritional requirements, in this sense, is not in the interests of the child, regardless of the opinion of the parents or the child himself. Of course, this should not be understood in the sense that the teacher forces the child to take food, but he is obliged to provide him with this food (even if the child refuses to eat it).

If the question concerns the special diet of the teacher, then the only thing that can cause controversy is the place of eating. If local regulations school or by an order of the administration (for example, in the internal labor regulations or in the order of the director) that employees must eat in the canteen, and not in their office, then they must comply with the rules established at the school. However, this refers more to nutrition in general than to religious restrictions.

A fairly common problem is non-compliance with the requirements for clothing adopted at school, for the reason that they do not satisfy the rules of a particular religion. At the same time, violation of school requirements for clothing by both teachers and students is possible.

Rights and obligations of participants educational process determined by the charter and documents adopted in accordance with it. In the event that the requirements for the clothing of employees or students are not established either in the charter or in the documents adopted on the basis of the charter, in our opinion, the school can only require compliance with generally accepted standards of appearance - these are clean, neat clothes, styles appropriate for staying at school (inappropriate , for example: swimwear, overly short skirts, sweatshirts with an open belly, etc.). The presence, for example, of a headscarf, a Muslim scarf (hejab) on the head or a kippah should not serve as a basis for restricting human rights in any way (not being allowed to attend classes, demanding to change clothes).

This problem is controversial: the right of a citizen to express his affiliation to religion and the right of an educational institution (as an organization with the status of a legal entity) to establish rules of conduct for its employees and students are in conflict with each other.

In order to decide whether a school can ban certain forms of dress required by religious norms, it is useful to consider two decisions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on an appeal that specifically focused on Muslim dress. The instruction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was appealed, according to which, in order to obtain a passport, it is necessary to provide a photograph without a headdress. The applicants considered that this provision violated the rights of Muslims, since the rules of conduct for believers, set out in the Koran, forbid Muslim women from showing all parts of their bodies to male strangers, with the exception of the oval of the face and hands. These requirements of the Qur'an are applicable in all situations where any form of dress is established.

In the decision of the first instance of March 5, 2003 No. GKPI 03-76, the court considered that the appeal was not subject to satisfaction for the following reasons. The Russian Federation is a secular state. The requirement for a photo sample for a citizen's identity document cannot be considered as a violation of the right to freely profess religion, choose, have and disseminate religious beliefs and act in accordance with them. The provisions of the instruction apply to all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation, and do not restrict the right of a person and a citizen to freedom of religion.

The instruction does not establish rules for the behavior and wearing of toilet items for any group of citizens or a citizen depending on religion, does not interfere with human rights to freely profess any religion, choose and change, have and spread religious beliefs and act in accordance with them. It is not prohibited for believing Muslim women to wear a headscarf to cover their hair. Thus, the court recognized that the form of clothing can be limited in a certain way for all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation.

These arguments of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in principle, could serve to justify the right of the school to introduce in the charter, rules of conduct for students, internal labor regulations or other local documents requirements for the clothing of students and employees, the violation of which would be considered a violation of discipline in the school.

However, later on this appeal, the decision of the cassation instance was adopted

of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of May 15, 2003 No. KAS 03-166, in which the court came to the opposite conclusion and cited other arguments. According to the court, Art. 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Art. 3 of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations", it follows that the Russian Federation, being a secular state, guarantees the right of everyone to act in accordance with their religious beliefs within the limits limited by federal law.

Based on this constitutional right, believing Muslim women have the right to act in accordance with their religious beliefs and not appear without a headdress in front of strangers, unless the federal law establishes rules that are mandatory for all citizens of the Russian Federation, the observance of which is associated with the need to show themselves to strangers with uncovered head.

There is no federal law that establishes such rules, the instruction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is a by-law and cannot contain norms, the implementation of which requires citizens to act contrary to their religious beliefs. The prescription of the instruction is mandatory for all citizens of the Russian Federation; this rule does not contain any exceptions for persons whose religious beliefs do not allow them to appear before strangers without headgear.

The inclusion in a by-law of a norm obliging citizens to act in contradiction to their religious beliefs violates their constitutional rights and is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the aforementioned Federal Law.

The previous decision has been reversed.

Based on the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, restrictions on the form of clothing by any normative acts (except for federal law) can be established, provided that they do not oblige believers to violate the clothing requirements established by their religion. Currently, a federal law that establishes requirements for the uniform of students and employees educational institutions, does not exist. Therefore, the school cannot make rules for wearing clothes that are contrary to religious requirements.

Thus, the school has the right to introduce rules regarding the appearance of students and employees and their clothing, but if the requirements of religion prohibit following these rules, the teacher or administration should not insist on observing those parts of them that are contrary to the requirements of religion. We agree with this interpretation of the legislation and believe that the right of everyone established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation to profess their religion and act in accordance with their religious beliefs should not be limited by local acts of the organization.

However, a citizen who does not want to comply with the restrictions on the form of clothing recorded in the local acts of the school based on the requirements of religion must provide evidence that religious requirements that prevent compliance with the restrictions really exist.

In this aspect, the requirements of religion and the time at which work and training of a person are carried out can enter into conflict. In many religions, there are restrictions on work at certain times: for example, in Orthodoxy on Easter week, in Judaism on Saturdays, etc. The schedule of school classes for students and work for teachers does not take into account these requirements.

As a result, conflicts often arise. For example, in one of the Moscow schools, many students did not regularly attend classes on Saturdays (the school had a six-day school week). The demands of the teachers were ignored, the educational authorities intervened in the development of the situation, demanding the implementation of the curriculum. After it became clear that the administration was unable to ensure the presence of students in the classroom, the education authorities demanded tough measures under the threat of disbanding the school. (The conflict was subsequently resolved with the introduction of a five-day school week.)

In this situation, the obligation to obey the order established by the administration of the institution is established at the level of federal laws (Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Law of the Russian Federation "On Education"). The school, in setting the class schedule for students and the work schedule for teachers, is acting legally on the basis of federal laws. Violations of this schedule, schedule, can be regarded as a violation of discipline. For example, a teacher may be disciplined for missing work without a valid reason (up to and including dismissal), a student may be reprimanded for missing classes, an additional task may be given, an assessment for the work performed may be reduced (for example, if it was completed during three lessons, one of which was skipped, the teacher can give the grade as if the given work was done for the proper amount of time) provided by the school in case of absenteeism.

When deciding whether a teacher should meet halfway in providing an opportunity to implement a particular religious requirement in the student's behavior within the framework of the educational process, one should take into account:

• whether this or that requirement is really due to religious tradition, ritual, other rules (if not, then it is not necessary to satisfy it);
• this requirement imposes on the teacher additional duties that are not included in the range of his functions under the employment contract and which he is not obliged to fulfill, or simply related to not preventing the child from performing certain actions, behaving in one way or another.

At the same time, the student must be given the freedom to follow his religious beliefs and manifest in his behavior the requirements of religion, if these manifestations:

• not dangerous to the health of the child (otherwise, the teacher should not allow them to be followed, since it is the responsibility of the child to take care of the health and safety of the child during his stay at school);
• are not offensive to others from the point of view of generally accepted morality, do not incite national or inter-religious hatred, do not discriminate against other persons on the basis of a lack of faith or other faith (otherwise, the teacher cannot allow them to be followed, because he must comply with the law prohibiting such actions );
• do not interfere with the implementation of the educational program (otherwise, the teacher should not allow them to be followed, since the implementation of the program is his main labor function and the main task of the educational institution).

The teacher, however, is granted freedom of expression of religious views, if such expression does not interfere with the performance of his official duties and is not offensive to other persons, does not violate their rights and freedoms.

In any case, the school should not show any discrimination, separation, special treatment of teachers or students on the grounds of their religion or, on the contrary, an atheistic attitude towards faith. Students and teachers are not required to disclose their attitude to religion and cannot be forced to determine their attitude to religion, to practice or refuse to practice religion, to participate or not to participate in worship, other religious rites and ceremonies, in the activities of religious associations, in teaching religion. With regard to minors, it should be borne in mind that it is forbidden to involve them in religious associations, as well as teaching religion against their will and without the consent of their parents or persons replacing them.

* Currently, separate creative theories of the origin of man are spreading, which contain various conclusions based on unexplained science facts about the creation of man by a higher mind and are aimed at refuting the conclusions of Darwin's theory. Despite the fact that the theories of creativeists are similar in their basic postulate to the views of religious organizations on the origin of man, these theories themselves are not part of religious teachings and cannot claim to be studied at school before being included in educational standards. The questions of proving one or another opinion about the origin of a person belong to the subject of science, and not religion, which is based on the conscious acceptance of beliefs by a person, regardless of evidence.

A.A. Vavilov,
legal consultant of the information center "Education Resources"

Municipal stage of the regional professional competition "Teacher of the Year of the Krasnoyarsk Territory"

The municipal stage of the regional professional competition "Teacher of the Year of the Krasnoyarsk Territory" has started.

Dates:

• acceptance of documents from 26.01 to 02.02.2916;
• the first (correspondence) stage from 03.02 to 11.02.2016
• the second (full-time) stage from February 18 to March 10, 2016

For the procedure for organizing and holding the municipal stage of the competition, see

02/03/2016 Acceptance of registration materials for participation in the municipal stage of the competition is completed

7 contestants were determined.

To participate in the correspondence round start:

Full name, address of personal Internet resource

Andreeva Natalia Valerievna, teacher of Russian language and literature 24 FebruaryIn the city Palace of Creativity for Children and Youth, the opening of the full-time round of the municipal stage of the regional competition "Teacher of the Year of the Krasnoyarsk Territory" took place. The Palace of Creativity cordially hosted the contestants and spectators. A festive atmosphere reigned in the hall. Despite the natural excitement, the participants of the competition adequately passed the first face-to-face test - "Business Card". The audience actively and kindly met the contestants, and colleagues, parents and students performed with them on stage. Photos of this event can be seen. Ostapenko Zh.A. Pulling force. maths Torshina T.V. Solving motion problems. Golovko O.Yu. Instrumental concerto: competition or agreement. Kiryan E.G. Teaching indirect speech. maths Valeiko E.A. Solving motion problems literary reading Yablokova E.I. V.P. Astafiev "Shorthair Creak". Introduction to the work. Russian language Andreeva N.V. Orthoepy 2nd of March the contestants will have a competitive test "Master class", which will be held in the assembly hall of MBOU School No. 106. We invite city teachers to attend master classes of the contest participants. The event will start at 14:00. Each participant is given 20 minutes to present their master class and 5 minutes to answer questions. A draw was made and the sequence of performances was determined: Yablokova E.I. Valeyko E. A. Ostapenko Zh.A. Torshina T.V. Andreeva N.V. Kiryan E.G. Golovko O.Yu.