But the relevant conclusions should be made only by the Minister.

But the relevant conclusions should be made only by the Minister.

5. Incidentally, forecasts of the consequences of the implementation of the new curriculum, which will include political, financial, social and other indicators, should be substantiated. They are? NO.

But the implementation of this curriculum will inevitably lead to a significant reduction in the number of teachers, increase spending on their retraining, the publication of new textbooks and manuals, etc. etc.

But no one thinks about it. Because you need to "pull up your pants, run after the Komsomol" … So the impression of terrible subjectivism and illogicality in such actions is created. But can the fate of Ukraine’s future depend on them?

And finally. I believe that by publishing this project, MES officials have once again framed Minister Lilia Hrynevych. As it was before. But the relevant conclusions should be made only by the Minister. This is not a holiday post at all.

The original

secondary education reformtraining programsblogsIgor Likarchuk


The swamp of interest mania is drawing teachers deeper into the swamp of formalism and fraud

Igor Likarchuk: interest mania is flourishing in education

Author: Igor Likarchuk, former head of the Ukrainian Center for Educational Quality Assessment.

Analyzing the comments on FB, you involuntarily come to one extremely annoying conclusion. In the system of general secondary education, this negative phenomenon is flourishing, against which the advanced pedagogical community has stood in the mid-1980s – interest mania.

Heads of schools under the influence of educational officials in percentage measure everything: pedagogical skill of the teacher, quality of his professional activity, success of pupils, wearing by them of a school uniform, level of their educational achievements, readiness of the teacher for certification , attendance by pupils, performance of plans of work, methodical activity …

They produce hundreds of different tables, reports, graphs. For the sake of a good indicator / percentage, teachers are forced to engage in admiration, provoke conflicts in pedagogical, student and parent teams, overload teachers and themselves.

Every day, the swamp of interest mania draws thousands of educators deeper and deeper into the swamp of formalism and fascination, and the bureaucracy sits and prospers.

I would like to remind you that back in 1984, interest rate mania and the corresponding reporting of schools were banned. Even in the schools of tsarist Russia it was forbidden to calculate the average grade point average, which is nothing more than the average temperature of patients in the hospital. And in thousands of Ukrainian schools it is still counted today.

Moreover, these indicators assess the work of teachers. Doesn’t this indicate that in the twenty-fifth year of Independence, we have returned to the practice of the Stalin-Brezhnev school?

How do these ratings, compiled by various educational and methodological officials, differ from the indicators of the Soviet-Communist socialist competition for the best success that prevailed in those years?

How do the current reports of schools that calculate the total success rate differ from the reports on the fulfillment of socialist obligations at that time?

And nothing. Except for lexical forms and new words and phrases.

I am writing this and remembering one of the latest reports about the MES’s intentions to reform education: the fight against the school bureaucracy.

MES officials believe that it will be enough if they develop a new Instruction on record keeping. I have already written about their intention and its absurdity in the context of combating the bureaucratization of school life.

Therefore, without repeating myself, I suggest that the Ministry of Education and Science officials prepare and submit to Minister Lilia Hrynevych a draft order, which will contain only two sentences after the word "I order":

1. Prohibit evaluating the work of general education, children’s preschool and vocational schools and their teachers and managers in quantitative and average generalized indicators

2. The responsibility for the implementation of this order shall be assigned to the heads of educational institutions and educational management bodies.

No need to thank me for this offer.

The original

Igor Likarchukblogssecondary education reform


The existing methodical service is not needed and brings more harm than good to education

I. Likarchuk: a good teacher does not need Methodists

Author: Igor Likarchuk, former head of the Ukrainian Center for Educational Quality Assessment.


A few more thoughts on the Soviet-Soviet rudiment in the domestic education system are methodological services.

As an educational historian, I can say that they appeared in what is now called the Stalinist period in historiography. When it was necessary to level and suppress any manifestations of pedagogical free-thinking and teachers’ freedom, and the activity of each teacher had to correspond to the party line.

The army of educational supervisors that existed at that time (inspectors) could not cover the entire pedagogical army. And then the idea arose to create a "methodical" service. For "learning" and guiding "true" teachers.

Since then, hundreds of aunts and uncles have been raiding schools like locusts in search of fresh leaves: checking, scribbling in papers, conducting monitoring and control, looking for flaws in class journal entries, summarizing, attesting, collecting data and accumulating data. every teacher …

I have always been interested in such a sacramental question. A teacher must have a diploma to engage in pedagogical activities. Today we are starting to demand a diploma from the school principal. Even civil servants are required to have special education.

And what is a "Methodist"? Which university trains methodologists for the education system? What should be his educational and professional level? After all, what should his IQ be? What it should be like for a person to come to an educational institution, brazenly go to a teacher’s lesson, and then tell him long and tediously about how to conduct a lesson. Or to check the work plans and other papers of the teacher, and then show because they have "wrong".

Why do mediocre teachers, in many cases, become mediocre teachers, or those who saw the school only in a nightmare? Why does a teacher who has become a Methodist become an enemy to his former colleagues? Why, after all, the vast majority of teachers do not respect this educational service and are AFRAID of its representatives? After all, why do we have such distrust of the teacher and the constant dominance of the idea that the teacher NEEDS some methodical help in the form of a methodical diaper?

But understand the simple truth: a good teacher does not need such diapers. A good teacher constantly and without methodologists works to improve his professional level. Today there are huge opportunities for this. The Internet, public institutions, live communication do much more than thousands of those Methodists, many of whom are stuck in their pedagogical worldview at the level of the past years of the last century.

I may be denied that this is for a good teacher. And I will answer that the grave will not fix the bad, not that one or a whole army of Methodists … So, I repeat once again that today’s methodical service is absolutely not needed and harms education more than benefits. After all, we have a large army of Methodist teachers. It is better to pay them extra for methodical work (help to order other teachers), and not to keep a huge army of supervisors / mass-tricksters in the education system.

And there will be budget savings, and the benefits for education are considerable. And real, not diaper care.

The original

education financingsecondary education reformblogsIgor Likarchuk


The work of teachers is the training and development of students, and there are other specialists to develop programs

I. Likarchuk: everyone should do their job

Author: Igor Likarchuk, former head of the Ukrainian Center for Educational Quality Assessment.

I return again to the words of the Minister of Education and Science that "responsible teaching should join the process of curriculum development."

Frankly, I don’t know what a "responsible teacher" is. If there are any, they should be "irresponsible". Where are they, if there are no teachers in schools who have not passed this senseless certification of teachers, which was invented by the same Ministry …? And, obviously, all certified can be formally considered "responsible".

And, if the Ministry of Education and Science that there are "irresponsible", then why don’t they do anything to prevent such people?

Instead, I know that there are many good teachers in Ukraine who are very professional masters of their craft. I emphasize "my business".

And their job is to teach and develop their students. But by no means – not curriculum development. There are other specialists for this.

For that, they receive salaries, all kinds of lifelong scholarships for academics, manage departments, defend dissertations, teach at pedagogical universities and even check teachers and tell them how they should work.

If this group of specialists is not able to develop new programs, then why do they need them at all? And if the Ministry of Education and Science cannot force them to do it, organize such work, moderate it – then why do we need such a Ministry of Education and Science?

I am convinced that everyone should do their job. In order not to repeat a situation like the one when first-graders have to explain the meaning of the words "rats are rats", but in a different plane.

After all, the textbook, which includes these "priceless" lines, was also compiled by people who are difficult to call specialists in the methods of primary education …

The original

secondary education reformtraining programsblogsIgor Likarchuk


The publication of the letters of the Ministry of Education and Science on the page "Legal documents of the Ministry of Education and Science" does not make them so

I. Likarchuk: whether to carry out the letters of the Ministry of Education and Science on the ground

Author: Igor Likarchuk, former head of the Ukrainian Center for Educational Quality Assessment.

I must sincerely repent: I am a sinful person.

One of my "sins" is that, while working as the director of the Center, 90 percent of the letters I received from the Ministry of Education and Science were carefully read and then thrown in the trash. At 5% of the letters, I made a resolution: "To the point." In other words, it meant – forget it. There are many witnesses to this "sinful" act of mine.