Hello! Hello! Hello!
Once I listened to a conversation of Sergei Guriev (economist, professor) on the topic of problems in education and it was only about the problems of higher education (although the topic of education in general was announced). At that moment I had already been working as a teacher for a couple of months and naturally I had a feeling of understatement. So the idea was born to write this article. It will talk about how the architectural school is organized and where its problems grow from (and from there the problems of all education in Russia).
Disclaimer. This article is a cross between a cry from the heart and a Friday post about life and all that. For the last 5 months, the author has worked in an ordinary secondary school of an ordinary millionaire in Russia, got tired, quit and decided to describe what he saw there (and what he did not see). Attention! Attention! Attenzione! Below is a personal experience! Please do not take this as the ultimate truth.
So, point one. What is high school
The school consists of three groups of players: administration, teachers, students. I will deliberately simplify and omit various special cases, because architectural planning is about something that should work 99% of cases, and not 1%.
The administration is the director and several head teachers, their share is the interaction with the outside world, i.e. if the school is presented as an organism, then administration is the property of the organism to become irritated in response to external influences. The main job of the administration is to try to fulfill all the requirements while not picking up too many bumps. Hence the main goal of this player is to make everything work somehow - and his main antagonist is the unwillingness of all other players to change something. Basically, they fall into this group, not because they want and are eager, but because they “have to”, deal with papers and be accountable for the fulfillment of an unrealizable desire for anyone.
— . . , . — - , — , , — . , , , .
. : , , — , — , - .
: , 22 — 30 , ( ), (), ( ) 9 11 - (). : () ( ) - .
, : , , , - , , , . ? , , . ? ( ) ?
.
, ( , ) . : , , . , : , , , , . — ( , , ), . . , , , , ? . , . ? , , . ? , . , , . : , , ? — ; , , ( — ), , ( ) .. , .
. - ?
, , — . : ( ) , . — . ( , , , ), ( , , , , ), , — , — ; -. , , , , , , . , 25 — — , , , , , , ( , ), , , , , . ( = ), — .
. ( ), , , — — , , , . , , , , . (. ), ( , ).
, : ( - ) . — 7–9 — : , , , . 9 . 950 - , , , ( ), : ! ! ( - , , — ).
, , . , , , , , .
— “ № n+1”
.
— , — . “ — ” - . ( ), , — ( !), , , . — — (. ). , , , — .
— . , ( , , — ), — 1.5–2 25 — , , . . . , , , , , , — . , — , .
.
: - . , . . ? 33 . , ? . , — . : ? , ; , ? , , . , , , . , , .
Total
As a result, we get a vertical system of a pseudo-war type where flexibility, motivation and initiative are needed - which naturally leads to failure. There is no normal system of direct and feedback connections, checks and balances are not set up, resources are severely limited, the characteristics of the players participating in the process, as well as their desires, are ignored. The end is a little predictable. Please don't do that.