THE CONCEPT OF LABOUR BY SOPHIA RUSOVA AND THE WAYS OF IST REALIZATION IN THE SYSTEM ‘PRESCHOOL ESTABLISHMENT – THE SCHOOL OF DOING’

In the context of metamorphoses that the state of Ukraine and the Ukrainian school go through, it is expedient to study and retrospectively analyse pedagogical thought of a specific historical period in order to find answers and form mature solutions to complex issues that arise in modern conditions. Due to certain similarity of historical circumstances, theoretical works and practical realization of ideas of Ukrainian pedagogues from the begin of the XXth century have deep potential as an ideological-inspiring source for contemporaneity. Based on the study of original sources using the comparative theoretical analysis and analytical generalization, the article summarizes the leading ideas of Sophia Rusova on the ways of implementing the concept of labour (activity method of teaching) in the system of preschool institutions and active (labor) school in the 20s of the XXth century. Recommendations for the use of this method are specified, taking into account the age of children and the specifics of the school subjects. Based on the analysis of Sophia Rusova’s works (“New School of Social Education”, “Theory and Practice of Preschool Education”, “Unified Active (Labor) School”, “Extracurricular Education”), the advantages of the labour method, its potential for the formation and development of the child’s personality has been investigated. The connection of Sofia Rusova’s ideas with the classical European pedagogical thought and practical application of such educational concepts in the European countries is traced. Emphasis is placed on the agreement of Sofia Rusova’s ideas on the advantages of the activity method of teaching with the task of reforming the national education system in Ukraine at the beginning of the XXIst century.

Children's labor colonies - the forerunner of Soviet pedagogy (Shatsky S.T.)

В статье раскрыт опыт создания первых трудовых колоний-поселений для детей в России начала прошлого века; описаны педагогические эксперименты С.Т. Шацкого и других педагогов. Автор обосновывает точку зрения о том, что советская педагогика зародилась как «исправительно-трудовая педагогика» и сохраняет ее следы в современном образовании, а также опровергает версию о ее преемственности с идеей трудовой школы Н.К. Крупской. Ша́цкий Станисла́в Теофи́лович (1878—1934) — российский и советский педагог - экспериментатор, автор трудов по вопросам воспитания. Разносторонний и талантливый, он долго ищет свое призвание, успешно учится в Московской консерватории по классу вокала и даже приглашается в оперную группу Большого театра. В 1893 году Шацкий поступает в Московский университет, где с мехмата переводится на медицинский факультет, затем переходит в Тимирязевскую сельхозакадемию, но и ее не заканчивает. К этому времени он уже решает стать педагогом, вдохновляется опытом школы Л.Н. Толстого в Ясной Поляне, где учащиеся много внимания уделяли сельскому труду. В 1906 году Шацкий при поддержке архитектора и просветителя А.У. Зеленко открыл в Москве клуб для детей. Средства на строительство дал обладатель самого большого состояния России начала XX века предприниматель Н.А. Вто́ров, прозванный «русским Морганом». После закрытия клуба полицией, Зеленко уезжает в США, а Шацкий продолжает педагогические эксперименты в создаваемых им новых трудовых коммунах. С 1932 по 1934 г. Шацкий - директор Московской консерватории и Центральной педагогической лаборатории. The article reveals the experience of creating the first labor colonies-settlements for children in Russia at the beginning of the last century, it describes the pedagogical experiments of ST Shatsky and other teachers. The author substantiates the point of view that Soviet pedagogy originated as a "correctional-labor education" and retains its traces in modern education, and also refutes the version about its continuity with the idea of the labor school of N.K. Krupskaya. Shatsky Stanislav Teofilovich (1878—1934) — Russian and Soviet teacher-experimenter, the author of works on education. Versatile and talented, he has been searching for his mission for a long time, successfully studies at the Moscow Conservatory in the vocal class and is even invited to the opera group of the Bolshoi Theater. In 1893, Shatsky entered Moscow University, where he transferred from the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics to the Faculty of Medicine, then transferred to the Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, but did not finish it either. By this time, he had already decided to become a teacher, inspired by the experience of L.N. Tolstoy's school in Yasnaya Polyana, where students paid much attention to rural work. In 1906, Shatsky, with the support of the architect and educator A.U. Zelenko, opened a club for children in Moscow. The funds for the construction were given by the owner of the largest fortune in Russia at the beginning of the 20-th century, entrepreneur N.A. Vtorov, nicknamed "Russian Morgan". After the club was closed by the police, Zelenko left for the United States, and Shatsky continued his pedagogical experiments in the new labor communes that he created. From 1932 to 1934 Shatsky was a director of the Moscow Conservatory and the Central Pedagogical Laboratory.

Political laws of pedagogy as a distortion of the historical mission of education (P. Blonsky)

Автор подвергает критике выведенные Павлом Блонским законы педагогики марксизма: «О классовой сущности педагогики», «Соответствие школы определенному общественному строю», «Цель школы – производственное образование». Заложенные в них, а также в выдвинутой Крупской и поддержанной Блонским концепции «трудовой школы» принципы образования рассматриваются как сознательное отступление от научных основ педагогики и пример выполнения ученым политического заказа. В статье доказывается, что педагогика, как и любая наука, должна быть свободна от политики, подчиняться исключительно законам объективного познания. Для утверждения педагогики в статусе науки, она обязана выдавить из себя «политического раба», а ученый – перейти от педагогики страха к педагогике чести и достоинства. Блонский Павел Петрович (1884–1941 г.г.) – русский и советский философ, психолог, педагог, один из основоположников советской педологии. Окончил историко-филологический факультет Московского университета, оставлен на кафедре философии для подготовки к профессорской деятельности, работал приват-доцентом. По рекомендации Н.К. Крупской становится членом научно-педагогической секции Государственного ученого совета, участвует в разработке учебных программ и в школьной реформе. Пользовался поддержкой А.В. Луначарского. В конце жизни работал в Институте психологии в Москве. The author criticizes the laws of pedagogy of Marxism derived by Pavel Blonsky: "On the class essence of pedagogy", "Correspondence of the school to a certain social order", "The goal of the school is industrial education". The principles of education embedded in them, as well as in the concept of “labor school” set forward by Krupskaya and supported by Blonsky, are considered as a deliberate departure from the scientific foundations of pedagogy and an example of the fulfillment of a political order by scientists. The article proves that pedagogy, like any science, should be free from politics, subject exclusively to the laws of objective knowledge. To establish pedagogy in the status of science, it must squeeze out of itself a "political slave", and a scientist must move from the “pedagogy of fear” to the “pedagogy of honor and dignity”. Blonsky Pavel Petrovich (1884–1941) is a Russian and Soviet philosopher, a psychologist,a teacher, one of the founders of the Soviet pedology. He graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University, remained at the Department of Philosophy to prepare for professorship, worked as a privat-docent. According to the recommendation of N.K. Krupskaya, he becomes a member of the scientific and pedagogical section of the State Academic Council, participates in the development of curricula and in school reform. Enjoyed the support of A.V. Lunacharsky. At the end of his life he worked at the Institute of Psychology in Moscow.

Pedagogical heritage of the political tandem Krupskaya - Lunacharsky

В статье показано, как в результате Октябрьской революции 1917 года было прервано развитие педагогической науки в России. В результате догматического прочтения идеи немецкого философа Карла Маркса, неверно интерпретированной вождем революции В.И. Лениным, был выдвинут ошибочный лозунг обязательного «соединения обучения с производительным трудом молодого поколения». Основываясь на нем, Н.К. Крупская навязала образованию тупиковую модель так называемой «трудовой школы». Она ввергла российскую школу в десятилетие хаоса и ошибок, привела к дезориентации педагогической общественности, разрушению системы профессиональных учебных заведений. Таков неизбежный результат любого политического вмешательства в образование и идеологии – в научную педагогику. Автор считает идею трудовой школы «русским крестом» отечественной педагогики, а степень ее восприятия – тестом на объективность и профессионализм российских ученых. Крупская Надежда Константиновна (1869–1939 г.г.) – жена вождя революции В.И. Ленина, одна из идеологов педагогики марксизма и создателей советской системы народного образования, заместитель наркома просвещения РСФСР, доктор педагогических наук, почетный член АН СССР. С 1930 года была отстранена от работы в Наркомпросе и занялась вопросами библиотечной работы. Луначарский Анатолий Васильевич (1875–1933 г.г.) – близкий соратник В.И. Ленина, первый нарком просвещения РСФСР, искусствовед, писатель, переводчик. В 1929 году смещён с поста наркома и назначен директором Института литературы и языка Коммунистической академии. Сторонник латинизации русского алфавита. Академик АН СССР. The article shows how, as a result of the October Revolution, 1917, the development of pedagogical science in Russia was interrupted. As a result of a dogmatic reading of the idea of the German philosopher Karl Marx, which was incorrectly interpreted by the leader of the revolution V.I. Lenin, the erroneous slogan was put forward of the obligatory “combination of education with the productive labor of the young generation”. Based on it, N.K. Krupskaya imposed an impasse on the model of the so-called labor school. It plunged the Russian school into a decade of chaos and mistakes, which led to disorientation of the pedagogical community, the destruction of the system of professional educational institutions. This is an inevitable result of any political interference in education and ideology – in scientific pedagogy. The author considers the idea of a labor school to be the “Russian cross” of Russian pedagogy, and the degree of its perception is treated as a test of the objectivity and professionalism of Russian scientists. Krupskaya Nadezhda Konstantinovna (1869–1939) – the wife of the leader of the revolution V.I. Lenin, one of the ideologists of pedagogy of Marxism and the creators of the Soviet public education system, deputy commissar of education of the RSFSR, doctor of pedagogical sciences, honorary member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Since 1930, she was removed from her position, and was engaged in library work. Lunacharsky Anatoly Vasilievich (1875–1933) – a close associate of V.I. Lenin, the first People's Commissar of Education of the RSFSR, an art critic, writer, translator. In 1929, he was removed from his position as people's commissar and was appointed director of the Institute of Literature and Language of the Communist Academy. Supporter of the Latinization of the Russian alphabet.

Administrasi Layanan Khusus

This article aims to describe the understanding, types and management, and the role of the teacher in the administration of special services. In this article, the author uses the method of studying literature by collecting literature (material materials) sourced from books, journals, and other sources related to the science of special service administration and then concludes all material or material obtained by developing it in the form of knowledge or new insight. Special service administration is a process of providing service needs to students to support learning activities so that educational goals can be achieved effectively and efficiently. Special service administration is divided into several types, namely libraries, labor, school health enterprises, cafes, religious facilities, dormitories, cooperatives, and transportation. One of the roles of the teacher in the administration of special services is in the type of library, the teacher has the task of introducing books to students and teachers, choosing books and other library materials to be purchased, promoting the library both for use and guidance, knowing the type and mastering general criteria that determine the merits of a collection, as well as ensuring that students actively help the development of the library.

Georgy Maslov and Leonid Martynov: Meetings in the White Capital (Omsk, 1919)

The subject of this article arose in connection with the study of the cultural history of Siberia during the Civil War (1918–1922). An appeal to archival documents and L. N. Martynov’s memoirs made it possible to reveal many interesting facts from the life of the White capital and recall one of its significant episodes – the meeting of the schoolboy Leonid Martynov with the Petrograd poet Georgy Maslov in the summer of 1919. They met at the book collection office creating hospital libraries in August 1919. The meeting with the first real poet made a strong impression on Leonid. Young people met often, came to each other’s homes. It is not difficult to imagine how fascinating and informatively rich were he stories of the participant in the Pushkin seminary and the university’s “Circle of Poets” for the Omsk schoolboy. Maslov introduced the schoolboy and his friends N. Kalmykov and V. Shebalin to all the “stray” writers. Maslov wrote a lot and published poetry in local periodicals, and Martynov was probably one of the first to read them. Maslov firmly adhered to the anti-Bolshevik position, and in poetry on contemporary themes he expressed his high patriotic feelings, calling on his compatriots to enlightenment. These moods influenced the young Omsk citizen. In line with the influence of Maslov on the worldview of young Martynov – a positive attitude towards the personality of A. V. Kolchak. In the spring in Soviet Omsk, Leonid left the gymnasium, which, under the new government, has now become the United Labor School. This decision, formed, of course, under the influence of Maslov, was an expression of protest and a demonstration of Martynov’s attitude to the new government. At the end of May 1920, fifteen-year-old Martynov went to Krasnoyarsk, where he met with E. Ivanov, who told him about the long, painful retreat to the east, the death of Maslov, showed him the poems he had written on the way. Returning to Omsk, Martynov meets with Maslov’s friend Tanya Solovyova, with whom they remember the poet and read his poems. At this time, Martynov conceived the idea of a poem dedicated to the memory of a friend – “Harlequinade”. In May 1922, Martynov is in Moscow, where he meets with the participants of the Omsk literary meetings and participates in an evening in memory of Maslov. The short friendship between the “Pushkinist and the Futurist” was fruitful for the young Martynov. It played a decisive role in his professional development, the forming of his literary tastes, social guidelines. The name of Georgy Maslov remained dear to Leonid Martynov until the end of his life.

SECONDARY EDUCATION OF THE 1920’s IN THE SOVIET PROVINCE

During the existence of the USSR, the Bolsheviks wanted to built a new class system in which workers would be the main social group. School in this context should have been included children to the adulthood from a young age. A tool of reeducation and breakdown of a child's life was a work. The reform of secondary education in the 1920s in the USSR meant the beginning of the cultural, social and economic dialogue of the Bolsheviks with their own commonwealth. This dialogue should to determine the further social development of the USSR. Teachers, local jurisdictions and children should become leaders of the dialogue. The population of the USSR in the early 1920s was predominantly rural. That’s why children were in a traditional family. At such environment, the child didn’t have his own desires, dreams, free time, etc. Parents always involved children to the land work and housekeeping. The Bolsheviks' idea of a school, in which a child would acquire a profession and work, was met with strong resistance among the local population. In the villagers` outlook, the school had to give only reading and elementary grammar. Everything else for existence will be given by the land on which the child must look after. This caused a confrontation between Bolsheviks and local population and fit into the “one-to-one” scheme. Bolsheviks used repression, after the resistance to a unified labor school. Repression meant an attempt to subjugate the traditional population and educate a “new person”. The “other-to-other” scheme also works with respect to the main actors in school life and power. Teachers, as the main leaders of the idea of unified labor school, had to bring up a "new person" locally. But in order to bring up a "new person", must understand what it is and have clear methods of education. The only thing that was clear to the teachers of the 1920s in the USSR – to use work as a tool of education at school. This is not surprising, because the person who chose the profession of а teacher, in the beginning of the Soviet Union, was not intended to educate the generation of communists, but to save their own lives, get benefits and wages, escape from the repression because of own past. That is why, a new generation of teachers consisted of "former" people, such as: White Guards, imperial officers, rich villagers and clergy. These people learned the Soviet language and successfully held posts at the school. It was convenient, but they couldn’t become the leaders of new ideas. So, the project of unified labor school in the USSR in the early 1920s was probably a dialogue or a monologue of Soviet power to the population. School, as a tool of education, became a field of confrontation between different social groups.

SCIENTIFIC AND PEDAGOGICAL ACTIVITY OF HRYHORII KHOLODNYI

In the late 19th – at the beginning of the 20th century the Ukrainian intelligentsia formed an idea of the importance of personal contribution to the national development in such fields as of education, science and culture. Hryhorii Hryhorovych Kholodnyi was one of those active representatives of the Ukrainian clerisy who responded to this unofficial appeal. The purpose of the work is to analyze the scientific and pedagogical work of H. Kholodnyi. In order to achieve this aim, methods of historicism, objectivity and academic assessment have been used in this research. The academic novelty is the first attempt to analyze the scientific and pedagogical contribution of H. Kholodnyi. H. Kholodnyi’s work on Ukrainian studies began immediately after his graduation from St. Petersburg University, precisely when he moved to Moscow and joined the local Ukrainian community, which was immersed into cultural and educational work. Also, at that time he joined the Society of Slavic Culture and the Ukrainian Publishing Society. Before the revolutionary events of 1917, H. Kholodny's patriotism had been revealed in his persistent work in the number of institutions where he developed Ukrainian scientific terminology and worked on the Ukrainian studies. The February Revolution of 1917 dramatically changed the life of the scientist. Thus, he moved to Ukraine and took an active part in educational and scientific projects in Chernihiv and Kyiv. Moreover, he put a lot of effort into organizing various educational events, the activities of Chernihiv "Prosvita", Chernihiv Scientific Society, the Institute of Ukrainian Scientific Language, etc. The scientist devoted a significant part of his life to cultural and educational activities, in particular he headed Chernihiv Labor School, taught lessons in higher and secondary educational institutions of Chernihiv and Kyiv, organized meetings and guided the work of "Prosvita" and Chernihiv Scientific Society, participated in scientific events of the Institute of Ukrainian Science Language and worked on terminological dictionaries. The study of scientific and pedagogical activity of H. Kholodnyi has allowed to distinguish three stages in his public life: 1) the 1912-1917 period was devoted to priority-setting of his social activities; 2) the 1917-1924 period was characterized by the dominance of the educational factor, 3) while during 1924-1929 the scholar entirely concentrated on the scientific work.

“Proletarization” of adolescence in the conditions of drastic reorganization of secondary education in Soviet Russia (1917-1930)

The subject of this research is the determination of leading ideas of drastic reorganization of secondary education and its impact upon students, which allows analyzing the peculiarities of adolescent age as a cultural-historical phenomenon. The reorganization was conducted in two directions: all existing educational institutions were transformed into the Uniform Labor School; an alternative to middle school for in-service education was created – school for working youth or factory-apprenticeship school. The Uniform Labor School replaced the old one and carried “bourgeois vestige”, which were intensively fought against, violating the traditional cirrucul and implementing “working processes”. School for working youth or factory-apprenticeship school, on the contrary, were considered a new type of class school and developed general educational character. The author examines the measures taken with regards to the two types of schools. Special attention is given to studying the peculiarities of adolescents from the Uniform Labor School and working youth from factory-apprenticeship school. The novelty consists on examination of peculiarities of adolescent age in the conditions of drastic reorganization of secondary education in the early period of Soviet Russia. It is claimed that the conducted reform led to “proletarization” of adolescence among second-levelers of the Uniform Labor School, while a working teenager from the School for working youth or factory-apprenticeship school was an underage adults deprived of childhood.