Education in the Soviet Union

Policies and Institutions Since Stalin

Mervyn Matthews

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136722196
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Education
• Thema: Education General

This book provides a comprehensive survey of the successes and failures of education and training in the Khrushchev and Breshnev years. The author gives an objective assessment of the accessibility of the main types of institution, of the contents of courses and of Soviet attempts to marry the functioning of their education system to their perceived economic and social needs. In addition the book has many useful and original features: For ease of analysis it summarises in diagram form complex statistics which are not usually brought together for so long a time period. It provides a systematic account of educational legislation; Matthews' comparison of series of official decrees will allow subtle shifts in government policy to be accurately charted. Particular attention is also paid to a number of issues that are often neglected: the employment problems of school and college graduates; the role and professional status of teachers; political control and militarisation in schools; the close detail of higher education curricula; and the rate of student failure. Of special value is the chapter on those educational institutions which are often omitted from Western studies and which are hardly recognised as such in most official Soviet sources.

1

General Education under
Khrushchev

The principal element in the Soviet educational structure is the ‘general’ school. It was established in roughly its present form in the early 1930s, and grew rapidly in size. During the later Stalin years, however, it underwent comparatively little change of structure or function. It was in a sense natural that Khrushchev, on coming to power in 1953, should have viewed it as being in need of urgent reform. His tenure of office as First Secretary of the CPSU, from 1953 to 1964, marked a very agitated period in its history.

Khrushchev was keenly interested in education, and his main policies consisted not only in promoting further expansion but also in restructuring the school and redefining some of its aims so that it could better prepare pupils for worthwhile employment. In the mid-1950s he made some initial attempts at change, mainly of a curricular nature, which ended in failure. At the end of the decade the number of children in the senior classes of the general school began to fall as the contingents born during the war, what we shall term the ‘war dent’, began to pass through. Khrushchev then apparently decided that this was a good time for more radical reorganisation, and in December 1958 he introduced a reform designed to affect all branches of the educational system, the general school included. The years which followed saw efforts at its implementation and, even before his dismissal, clear signs of retreat.

These matters, which are the main concern of this chapter, can be better understood in the context of the Soviet school's basic aims and history, so I shall start with a short account of them. After considering Khrushchev's policies and their educational impact in some detail, I shall show how their relative failure promoted the establishment of a youth employment service, and comment on the lot of the teachers during these years. General school policies under Brezhnev were, as we have noted, distinct enough to warrant treatment in a separate chapter.

AIMS AND HISTORY – AN OVERVIEW

At the outbreak of the First World War Russia had a modest but growing educational system. The network of primary schools, run by the central government, local authorities and the church, contained about 8 million children aged between 8 and 11. This was said to be rather more than half of the number in the corresponding age-groups. More advanced schooling, up to university level, was provided by a great variety of state and private institutions – gymnasia, technical colleges (realschulen), commercial, technical, teachers’ and military schools. There was said to be over half a million students in the state sector alone at this level. The political circumstances of the day did not, of course, greatly favour educational expansion; but it is noteworthy that the Provisional Government, which held office for a few months before the Bolsheviks came to power, had a vigorous programme in view.¹

When they came to power, the Bolsheviks showed a clear understanding of the importance of education for their cause. Not only did the existing system, with its ‘capitalist’, ‘exploitative’ orientation have to be dismantled, but a new school, designed to suit Bolshevik ideas, had to be set up. These ideas, which were to form the basis of Soviet educational theory, were simple in essence if not in application. Though Marxist in character, they were tailored to fit the practical needs of a new, ‘socialist’ order.

The fact that man was a product of his social environment gave the educational system (it was thought) immense possibilities for moulding his personality, and through him society as a whole. ‘Communist man’ would be devoted to the ideals of the Revolution, completely socialistic in his outlook and firmly integrated in the socialist collective, of which he was a disciplined member. His abilities would be fully developed by active participation in collective activities, for ‘individualism’ and ‘passivity’ were regarded as barren and pointless. He would not only be free of the religious beliefs propounded by the bourgeois school, but would be a convinced atheist. Old chauvinistic attitudes would be replaced by a sympathy for the proletariats of all lands (a requirement later supplemented by ‘Soviet patriotism’). Communist morality, the phrase used to sum up this mixture, also included eager participation in the political life of the country, suitable aesthetic, and maximum physical, development.

Bourgeois education was held to be scholastic and formal in nature. The Soviet school, by contrast, was to be thoroughly integrated in the social process. The Leninist precept of the ‘unity of theory and practice’ excluded any split between theoretical and practical disciplines or any division of the children on this basis. Streaming was socially divisive; the school was to be a cohesive whole, so that the children would all learn and act together, without distinction. And since a deeply materialistic outlook had to be inculcated into them, study was to be centred on the natural world (though not to the exclusion of cultural values). Man's ability to influence and ultimately control natural forces was in this way to be made clear.

In order to fulfil these tasks adequately the new school had to involve its charges in socially useful labour. Apart from its obvious relevance to other school work, this would accustom the children to group participation and direct their efforts to the nitty-gritty of communist construction. The principle of ‘polytechnical’ education was therefore deeply embedded in Soviet educational theory.

These aims undoubtedly contained much that was admirable. But they also included propositions which ran quite counter to liberal Western ideals. They left the individual no independence from the system; he was required to show unswerving allegiance to the Soviet state and all that it stood for, and mistrust any other ‘non-socialist’ orders. No provision was made for any values apart from Marxist ones (as interpreted by current Soviet leaderships), for critical thought in cultural and other matters or for creative growth in a non-collectivist direction.

The more central of these aims were expressed at the time of the Revolution itself: others took a few years of argument or official intervention to formulate. Some, as we shall see, were subject to varying interpretations or to neglect. Yet on the whole they continued to serve as the bedrock of Soviet educational theory and were broadly restated in the Fundamental Law on Soviet Education, promulgated by the Supreme Soviet on 19 July 1973.

As far as the practical reorganisation of the educational system was concerned, Lenin wasted no time whatever. On the day after the Bolshevik coup, his associate A. V. Lunacharski was nominated People's Commissar for Enlightenment.* On 9 November a State Commission for Enlightenment was set up to replace the former ministry: and although this commission was granted only general supervisory powers (for the local Soviets were supposed to administer the schools themselves), it established the principle of centralised control. In January 1918 the church was formally deprived of its educational functions, and decrees passed in February and June 1918 gave the People's Commissariat for Enlightenment (Narkompros), which replaced the commission, ultimate control of the management, physical assets and finances of all educational institutions, regardless of their former standing. The content of teaching materials was soon brought under comprehensive censorship regulations. Party organisations throughout the land were required, under the terms of an often-reprinted circular letter of 4 November 1921, to ensure that the administration of education and culture was in the hands of approved communists and regularly supervised by local party officials. Within three or four years the overwhelming majority of teachers at all levels of the system had been persuaded to join a single, Bolshevik-controlled, trades union.

The new school, or ‘unified labour school’ as it was called, was established by a statute of 16 October 1918. It was obligatory for all, free, mixed (for boys and girls), strictly secular and polytechnic. It had a two-part structure: the primary one comprised a five-year course and was for children aged 8 to 13; the second, lasting four years, was for 13- to 17-year-olds. All the existing institutions below university level were fitted into this scheme, and those which straddled the age-groups were split up. The unified labour school was to be preceded by a system of pre-school institutions, and followed by another of vocational (or to use the Soviet term, ‘professional’) character. All the pupils’ material requirements, together with buildings and equipment, were to be provided by the state. Education for non-Russians was to be provided in local languages. The new teachers trained were to be ‘imbued with the ideas of communism’.

The establishment of a new system based on Bolshevik principles did not, of course, mean that all aspects of school life had been determined once and for all. In fact, it is generally accepted that, until the time of Khrushchev's intervention, the Soviet school went through three distinct phases of development.

The first coincided with the years of War Communism and the Civil War. Schools at this time enjoyed what would later be considered an undesirable degree of independence. The new statute placed the administration of each establishment in the hands of a school council, composed of the teachers, local citizens and pupils over the age of 12, with a single official representing the local soviet. The council was to be virtually free of outside control, providing only that it observed the requirements of state legislation. The total of school hours and the school week of five and a half days were fixed by law; but class organisation was not, and classes were to be replaced, where possible, by freely formed groups or circles. Exams were abolished, homework was declared illegal and no physical punishment was allowed for misdemeanours. Instruction was to be effected through observation and through labour which was socially useful in its own right. There was much argument about the form and content of teaching, the problems of supervision and how far the school should replace the family as a formative influence.

Such voluntarism, however, could not but evoke qualms in official circles, once the heady aspirations of War Communism had been jettisoned, and about 1921 the Soviet school moved into a second stage of development. Under the terms of another statute, approved in December 1923, it was to be run by a manager (the term ‘director’ was avoided) who was nominated by the local soviet and empowered to overrule the school council. Formal assessment of children's progress was permitted for purposes of passing up. But teachers were still left with much freedom in the matter of instruction, provided it was based on ‘productive activity’, was closely tied in with ‘local production’, and bore a ‘class, proletarian’ character. The children were encouraged to take part in running school affairs.

The Soviet school of the 1920s has been described both as ‘experimental’ and (by ardent pedagogues) ‘romantic’. Within the framework of communist principles there was a great deal of pedagogical discussion. Such well-known figures as Nadezhda Krupskaya, Anton Makarenko and P. P. Blonski deliberated on the best methods of teaching, the development of the child's individual personality and the role of the collective. There was a keen interest in bourgeois educational practice. The so-called ‘complex’ method, which involved grouping the children into ‘brigades’ and having them work on active ‘projects’, continued to be widespread. It entailed much freedom of choice in the classroom, together with the downgrading of textbooks, rote learning and teacher-pupil formalities. The absence of specific restrictions permitted the growth of the ‘pedology’ movement, which involved testing children's aptitudes and intelligence so as to cater more sympathetically for individual needs.

In quantitative terms the coverage of the unified labour school increased steadily: enrolments, which had fallen (as a result of civil disruption and famine) to a low of 7.3 million in 1922, reached 18 million by the end of the decade. However, the geographical distribution of the population meant that the Soviet school was still overwhelmingly rural. The expansion of education facilities for juveniles was backed after December 1919 by a campaign against illiteracy, which was still, at the time of the 1926 population census, over 40 per cent among persons aged between 9 and 49. In addition, many part-time schools were started for those at work, and by 1930 enrolments topped a quarter of a million.

The qualitative successes of these years are measured less easily than the growth in numbers. Such successes may have been noteworthy, but the rapid stalinisation of Soviet life which took place after 1928 meant that the school could not enjoy so much freedom for experiment. In September 1929 Lunacharski resigned from the People's Commissariat of Enlightenment in protest against intensified government interference. This, in a sense, marked the transition to the third stage of educational policy.

A series of enactments brought about a shift in general school procedures. A decree of September 1931 stipulated that the traditional ‘abstract’ sciences, language, history and geography should predominate in school work and form the core of a controlled Marxist–Leninist curriculum. As a result manual activities gradually disappeared, and the polytechnical element was reduced to little more than a practical slant in science lessons. The use of the project method was condemned. A further decree of August 1932 called for a strict schedule of regulated study. As for school administration, the hand of the director was strengthened, while pupils’ efforts were diverted from managing school affairs to improving the quality of learning and strengthening discipline. Officially approved textbooks were made the basic learning tool after February 1933, and a rigorous system of marks, examinations, incentives and awards was introduced in December 1935. Thus was the Stalinist general school brought into being. Though unheralded by a new statute, it differed markedly from what had gone before. A very specific reinterpretation of the Marxist–Leninist educational precepts had taken place.

Meanwhile, enrolments grew apace. After 1929 the standard course was lengthened to ten years and divided into three, instead of two, parts. The number of full-time pupils rose at an incredible speed, reaching 35.5 million in 1940; part-time enrolments were over a million more.

The Second World War inevitably caused immense damage to the school network, and full-time enrolments fell back to 27 million. The postwar years were devoted primarily to re-establishing the earlier coverage, improving it and replacing damaged facilities. Stalinism in its later forms weighed no less heavily on the Soviet people; and the few changes made in school practice (which we shall consider as preliminaries to Khrushchev's policies below) were most conservative in character. The death of Stalin in March 1953 allowed the school to enter what might justifiably be called its ‘Khrushchevian’ phase. We now pass on to a more detailed examination of what this entailed.

THE GROWTH OF NUMBERS AND FACILITIES

When Khrushchev grasped the reins of power, the full-time general school contained some 30 million pupils (see Figure 1.1).* Official data on the coverage of children by age-group are not available, but there is little doubt that more or less all of the 7- to 11-year-olds were attending the first four classes, which formed the primary stage. About two-thirds of the 12- to 14-year-olds were staying for seven classes, or ‘incomplete secondary’ school, ‘secondary’, in Soviet parlance, meaning intermediate between primary and higher. Perhaps a fifth of the remaining age-groups (the 15- to 17-year-olds) were completing the whole ‘secondary general’ school course of ten classes. Given the turbulence of Soviet history, this was a very respectable achievement, and the fact that the expansion of facilities often lagged behind plan should not be allowed to overshadow it.

By the time Khrushchev was dismissed in October 1964, the number of full-time pupils had reached 42 million. This growth was by no means steady, mainly because of the ‘war dent’, which affected the first class of the general school about 1950 and cleared the tenth only towards the mid-1960s. At its nadir age-groups fell by more than half, but it did at le...

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• Front Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Preface
• 1 General Education under Khrushchev
• 2 General Education under Brezhnev
• 3 Low- and Middle-Grade Technical Schools
• 4 Higher Education under Khrushchev and Brezhnev
• 5 Some Student Problems
• 6 Supplementary Educational Services
• Conclusion Soviet Education: Successes and Failures
• Appendix A: Total Enrolments in Soviet Educational Institutions
• Appendix B: The State Education System
• Appendix C: Comparative Education Costs, circa 1972
• Glossary of Soviet Administrative and Other Terms
• Bibliography
• Index