Editor's Introduction

Abstract

During the Soviet period, education was linked closely to the needs of the state, and hence to what the state decided were the needs of the economy. This was especially true in the case of vocational and "specialist" education, as is pointed out by A.M. Novikov in "Russian Education: The Burden of a Legacy." Thus, new conditions, apart from considerations of human rights and respect for the individual, call for education to be focused on the student rather than the state: "In other words, education, instruction, and upbringing have to constitute a process of satisfying needs and interests at the same time. The task of the school should not be to impose programs and syllabi that have been created in isolation from the real needs of the learners but to determine what these needs are, to take them into account and to use them when planning the new kind of school." According to A. Novikov, however, little progress has been made in shaking off the legacy of the past, for the teacher is still the central figure in education, rather than the student. In addition, the practice of linking teachers' pay to the number of class hours they teach emphasizes not educational outcomes but the quantity of time expended. Moreover, because the teacher is paid so poorly he "is forced to take on as much of a teaching load as he can stand, depriving himself of sleep and recreation or any opportunity for cultural and professional development, and turning himself into a 'lesson giver.'" Since the vast majority of teachers are women, most of whom who have the additional burden of running a household, this puts enormous stress on those responsible for moving to a new system of learning. It also leads to some strange practices, which Novikov describes, in an effort to increase income. The picture of professional education drawn by Novikov is not a positive one, but that provided by V. Filippov (the Russian Minister of Education) in "The Place of Supplementary Education in the System of Russian Education" is even more worrisome. For example, the million or so people enrolled in supplementary education courses are in a sector that is virtually self-financed, with very little help forthcoming from the state budget. The situation will become more severe as the number of students in the schools falls due to demographic factors. Thus, by 2009 the number will have fallen by a third from what it was in 1999, a consequence of which will be a decline in the number of people entering the labor force and a subsequent increase in the need for supplementary professional education to fill the need for skilled labor. Attempts to provide an adequate basis for supplementary education, therefore, cannot be long-drawn-out since even a delay of two or three years "will mean that we will have to look for completely different approaches owing to the fact that the state system of supplementary education will not be able to be preserved by that time." To some extent, the changes that V. Novikov says are necessary have taken place in the new schools that have sprung up during recent years, an aspect of which is dealt with by V. Nikiforova in "Small Educational Structures." The situation she describes provides exactly the student-oriented, flexible form of professional and supplementary education that is needed, but their small size will make them especially vulnerable as the size of the school-age population shrinks. Their dependence on tuition, and competition for qualified applicants, will provide a challenge that may be difficult to meet.