Gladkovsky V.I., Shcherbachenko L.P.

Educational Establishment “Brest State Technical University”, Brest, Belarus

FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF HUMANIZATION OF EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

Currently, education is undergoing a period of fundamental changes, the search for new paradigmatic foundations for its functioning and development. Rethinking values, ideals, ways of organizing education brings to the fore its main value - a developing personality. The emerging humanistic paradigm of education can only be built if the student is recognized as an equal subject of education . This fundamental position focuses the main direction of pedagogical efforts on the actualization of the student's self-possessions, which involves providing a choice of ways of free manifestations when interacting with the outside world..

MAIN PART

In student-centered learning, an important element is the personality of the student, his previous experience, intellectual properties, internal attitudes, etc. Therefore, there is a problem of humanization of the existing education system. The problem of humanization of social processes should be understood as the insufficiency of human manifestations in social relations, changes and transformations. Its origins have been analyzed by many scholars of the beginning XX in. In particular, N.A. Berdyaev noted that “If a person is considered exclusively as a brick for building society, if he is only a means for the economic process, then one has to talk not so much about the appearance of a new person as about the disappearance of a person, i.e. about deepening the process of dehumanization. Man turns out to be deprived of the dimension of depth, he turns into a two-dimensional, planar being” (quoted from [2, p. 174]). M.T. Gromkova emphasizes that this statement of the thinker captures not only anxiety, but also the confidence that the dehumanization of public life is becoming a trend, an inevitable attribute of economic development, scientific and technological progress. Story XX in. confirms that the trend of dehumanization has indeed taken place. In our time, the process of dehumanization has reached an extreme point, giving rise to a comprehensive crisis [2, p. 175].

It is possible to start solving the problem of humanization of social life, apparently, only through the education system. Hence, there is a need for a social order for the education system to humanize the goals, content, methods of organizing educational activities and, on this basis, the result of educational processes. At present, science in various forms of social consciousness fills the world with huge flows of information. The information obtained by her has formed an information space that is becoming ever wider. The desire to master the increasing amount of information in the education system has become completely meaningless. In this regard, the factor of systematic knowledge, its structuring by levels, which makes it possible to navigate in new information, is of particular importance. But as a result, a number of urgent problems are exacerbated. Consider different types of training:

· In learning through the word, preference is given to verbal methods of transmitting information in finished form. The consciousness of students gets used to the consumption of ready-made information with the help of volitional efforts, sometimes regardless of their own thoughts (while the intellect does not develop) and their own feelings (emotions are almost absent).

· Learning through movement aims to provide a sustainable motor skill. However, by itself - in isolation from other species, such training does not develop intellectual and emotional abilities.

· Learning through discovery is learning by doing, learning about freedom of choice. Such learning brings great satisfaction from one's own discoveries. It contributes to the education of a creative person, develops the abilities of the individual. But in this case, the problem of assimilation of the necessary amount of information provided for by educational standards arises.

We share the point of view of M.T. Gromkova, who believes that all these types of learning should be considered not in the logic of “either ... or ...”, but in the logic of addition, in the logic of their equal significance [2, p. 178]. Such a combination of types of training in the process of teaching makes it possible to eliminate inconsistencies, creates conditions for resolving contradictions in the pedagogical process.

That is why, when building the educational process, it is necessary to take into account the personal and individual characteristics of students, which can be done in practice by providing them with the opportunity to freely choose the tasks to be performed in the presence of a certain standard set of requirements.

In itself, the idea of ​​free education in comparative pedagogy acts as a complex social, cultural and personal phenomenon, the development of which is determined by objective and subjective factors. The formation and development of the idea of ​​free education are closely connected with the socio-cultural development of the state. This idea occupied a dominant position in the social and pedagogical life of Russia and Western Europe during periods of resolving contradictions between the socially objective and individually subjective in the direction of the priority of the self-worth of a person and individual freedom and acted as an ideal, as an alternative to the traditional understanding of human education. Common to representatives of alternative education is the idea of ​​the inner harmony of the individual, the belief in the primordial presence of good forces in each individual. In the natural nature of students, there is a huge potential and inexhaustible opportunities that can develop and be realized under favorable conditions.

So, freedom, on the one hand, acts as a condition for the development of an original creative individuality, and on the other hand, as a natural state, a natural attribute of human essence, because the human essence of an individual is a choice that reflects the creative and active nature of any individual [1, p. 101].

However, it should be taken into account that the freedom of choice in education also includes the risk that this choice may become not an approximation, but a distance from the goals set [1, p. 101]. In addition, it is also necessary to take into account the individual responsibility of trainees for the result obtained. Therefore, if a student is given complete freedom to choose an activity in the learning process, then its result becomes uncertain. This means that in vocational training it is advisable and necessary to provide students with freedom of choice in one form or another, but this freedom must still be limited by certain requirements.

CONCLUSION

According to the concept of humanization of vocational education, an individual should be free, but he should be free not "from something", but for "something", free not from reasonable restrictions, but for self-determination. The only requirement when choosing a training system is that such a system should correspond to humanistic ideas, cover the main moral dilemmas and ways to solve them, and include the cultural values ​​of the community of which he is a member (national, religious, universal).

Free choice is inseparable from the development of critical thinking, from assessing the role of political and economic structures as factors of one's own life, from a responsible and active life position in determining ways to manage oneself and establish human relations in society. In the realization of this ideal, the educational environment is designed to help students understand themselves, identify both their own needs and the needs of others.

Thus, the general approach to the formation of an educational environment in which the freedom of choice in learning is applied should:

1) rely on a certain concept of humanization of the educational system;

2) be logically built, allowing students to consider information, both as a whole and in interconnected parts;

3) include freedom of choice as a necessary component for the learning process;

4) meet the interests of students that go beyond the scope of educational activities (extracurricular activities) for a more complete effectiveness in terms of results.

LITERATURE:

1. Bitinas B.P. Introduction to the philosophy of education. - M.: Foundation for Spiritual and Moral Education. - 1996. - 141 p.

2. Gromkova M.T. Psychology and pedagogy of professional activity: Proc. allowance for universities. - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2003, - 415 p.

3. Drozd O.I. Theoretical foundations of the organization of the game as a practice of being free / Strategic priorities for the development of modern education: materials of the international. scientific conf., Minsk, 14 Oct. 2004: In 4 volumes -T. 1. - Minsk: NIO, 2006. - 384 p.

In the post-Soviet space, highly qualified engineers, teachers, philologists or lawyers can be found everywhere, who work anywhere, but not in the field to which they devoted five years of their lives to study. In the US, however, the situation is radically opposite. How do Americans manage to achieve this? To find out, we suggest that you familiarize yourself with the features of career guidance in the American educational system.

Probably, each of us in childhood, out of curiosity, adults asked: "What do you want to be when you grow up?". Do you remember how easy it was to answer this question - as an astronaut, TV presenter, football player? However, at school, each of us, apparently, was explained that only a few can become astronauts, there are only 8-10 in-demand and popular TV presenters on each of the channels, and only 22 players go on the football field (not to mention the fact that the leading football players can be counted on fingers). So when it's time to choose direction of training at the university, schoolchildren are lost and for a long time cannot decide on the future direction of their activity.

After all, many of them understand that they are making a kind of fateful choice, which determines what disciplines they will study in the next five years, without much opportunity to change something, and how much knowledge and skills acquired over the years will be useful to them in the future. education at the university.

Agree that this is a rather difficult challenge for 17-18-year-old personalities, who, in most cases, can hardly be called fully formed and developed. As a result, in the post-Soviet space one can meet highly qualified engineers, teachers, philologists or lawyers everywhere, who work anywhere, but not in the field to which they devoted five years of their lives to study.

But in the US, the situation is radically opposite - almost all university graduates in the future, they work all their lives in the specialty chosen in their school years, and very rarely regret the choice they made. How do Americans manage to achieve this? To find out, we suggest that you familiarize yourself with the features of career guidance in the American educational system.

Career guidance in practice: it's all about personal experience

A huge difference between Russian education and education in the United States is the possibility of choosing individual study programs - in America, students can personally choose academic disciplines. That is, if you are interested in a certain course, you can first ask students who have already taken it about it. They can characterize the material that this course covers, the desired background that is required for this course, and even advise which professor teaches the chosen discipline better. Moreover, in American educational institutions As a rule, two professors read one course at the same time.

If you still have questions about whether this course will be useful and within your power, then you can discuss this issue directly with the professor who teaches the discipline. Quite often, a professor suggests that a doubting student take a preparatory or alternative course that covers the basic material, or allows you to choose a free form of study (in other words, the student can attend classes and listen to lectures, without subsequent participation in exams and receiving grades).

Also interesting in American education is that students have the opportunity to change their specialty in the learning process. You are absolutely not tied to any institute, department or group, and you can try yourself in different fields of knowledge. And American education is perfect for that.

Presentation of acquired knowledge is the basis of professional training

Much attention in American education focuses on students' ability to process, critically analyze and present information. The final part of most training programs is the so-called "Literature study", in which the student must work out scientific articles related to the material studied, considered during the course, and present it to their classmates.

Again, students have complete freedom in choosing the topic of their presentation. As a rule, students choose topics related to their scientific work, or they reveal more deeply the material from the course that interests them the most. So that the student does not have a desire to do his work "for show", American universities practice scoring, the number of which depends on the activity of fellow students in discussing the prepared material (that is, the more classmates do not sleep during your presentation, listens to you carefully and asks reasonable questions on your report, the more points you get).

Also, quite often the final exam in the discipline under study contains a question from student presentations, therefore, in the process of preparing for testing, students are forced to take part in collective discussions and regularly repeat the educational material.

University offices are an integral part of vocational training

One of the key problems Russian education Apart from, of course, corruption and bureaucracy, is the inability of universities to use their main resource - students. Students in the USA have many opportunities to "Work on campus" - to work for the university. There are a number of offices at the university where they not only earn for the university, but also hone their professional skills.

For example, if you study computer engineering or have skills in this industry, you can work in a computer service center, philologists can work in the international relations department of a university, mechanics can repair and maintain university equipment. That is how, by solving practical problems, starting from the university desk, the best specialists in the world are trained on the basis of American universities.

This approach to learning allows students to verify the correctness career choice long before graduation or become disillusioned with it and quickly retrain. In addition, working in a university office allows the graduate to position himself as an experienced specialist, which makes it possible for an American student to apply immediately after receiving a diploma for exactly the position that he dreamed of.

Instead of a conclusion

After studying the features of the American education system, we can draw an unambiguous conclusion: without global changes in the Russian education system, which will ensure the freedom of choice of disciplines for our students, and proper management by university leaders, the potential of our country cannot be fully realized. And he's huge!

It is not enough to say that Soviet education was terrible, and that the current Russian education is generally worthless. So what? we should talk about what education is in itself and how to get it.

Here the New Year passed, met with relatives. Before my eyes is the image of one of them. He graduated from a prestigious technical university in the 80s. Now - the deputy director of the average hand of the desk. In general - prosperity, a relatively lively person with ethics above average. But he is not educated at all, although he is very literate. Doesn't understand life at all.

How can he be educated? After all, the Soviet system did not include such disciplines as history, literature, art, religion, philosophy, logic...
"How much self-confidence do you need to have in order not to stop and not turn off the path of liberation from schools, from the path of freedom in education, work and all life?"- asks the author of the article posted below. At one time, after grades 4-5, I was rather engaged in self-education. I taught only what I wanted. Mathematics, for example, and biology with chemistry .. And I also seriously went in for sports at a sports school. This is how my personal path of freedom in education, work, all life.

True, we did not grow up from an academic environment, and the one we are talking about is the best there is. He is the first in the family who graduated from the university at all (I am the second :)). But my grandfather Peter Semenovich graduated from the 7th grade in the village. Once my father was caught at school for throwing out a behavior magazine with his friends - where? - of course in the toilet!
At the teachers' council they decided that let the father himself go to school with his son and look after him. Grandfather Petya sat at the lessons and listened with great interest...

A short story about education:
* unschooling - "schooling out". a term adopted among parents who educate their children in "family education". liberation from the stereotypes of the school, the prevailing system.

The most difficult in our unschooling it turns out not even how to learn or what is worth learning, whether it is necessary to force something to learn or not, when the value of self-education has already been realized and the main vectors have been found to help children in their education, but grandparents of our children.

The traditions of home education, as well as home birth, long-term breastfeeding have been lost by the vast majority of our mothers and even grandmothers so long ago that it is now almost as difficult to explain this to them as to the citizens of Malaysia. How do you explain to a woman who has only 2 months of maternity leave that breastfeeding for at least six months is the best food for her baby? The same is true with relatives. Many grandparents have become so accustomed to the existing education system that they consider it simply something undeniable.

All the same, a child who studies at home will not know perfectly how many cells to retreat and how to write "Classwork" and "Homework" correctly, which Bakugan models are the most fashionable now and what games a neighbor on the desk has on the phone. Children who study at home, no matter how hard you try, turn out to be completely different. I won't say they are better or worse.

Grandparents are always interested: where do our children study? To which there is still not enough courage to answer everyone directly: at home! If a person is not ready to hear the truth, how can he tell about it? We answer grandfather about the youngest: he is still 6 years old, he still does not go to school. He is trying to understand about the older one, but so far he can’t from our brief phone conversations. "On the Internet, or what? And the certificate? And the exams? And the Russian education? .."

Yes, grandparents so want to be proud of their grandchildren and say that ours is studying for five, and we, here, received a letter for the first class. And what can they say about children who have achieved in their lives, perhaps a lot, they themselves have achieved, no one offered it to them on a silver platter, but no one graduated their achievements in accordance with educational standards and did not translate them up the ladder of school initiation from the class to class? How much self-confidence do you need to have in order not to stop and not turn off the path of liberation from schools, from the path of freedom in education, work and all life?

Frankly, unschooling is much more difficult for parents and children who have managed to visit school. And you yourself become at least a little more inquisitive next to these powerful sources of curiosity and begin to learn without fear what you have dreamed of learning for a hundred years. I read this magazine and rejoice for the parents of children who study at home. Someone learned to play musical instruments, someone discovered a teaching talent in himself. I myself could not stand it and went to art school this year, for the first time in my life.

Recently, more than ever, all the media with different political orientations - left, legal and simply nowhere - and, especially, the Internet, which has become the property of almost every home and (unlike the central press and television) is available to present their sore and secret thoughts, are full of alarming reports about the upcoming "innovation", which the Ministry of Education and Science, through the next law on education, is trying to enlighten and make its people happy. Most of all, teachers pour out their pain, the older generation of which still remembers what a worthy education was in our country in the recent past and what it became after the “innovative” reform. They also remember parents whose children could get a free and good education not only at school, at any university, but even at the University on Sparrow Hills - if they had the ability and the will to learn.

Under the slogan of modernization and gaining freedom of education, as a result of legislative manipulations over the past two decades, many hard-to-correct mistakes have been made in the entire system of long-suffering domestic education. Any action is evaluated by the results, and the person himself by his deeds, and not by the words borrowed abroad and incomprehensible to many people: “modernization”, “innovation”, “variability” - and not by the beautiful-sounding phrase “quality of education”, with through which it is possible to raise the level of education. What are the results of educational "innovations"? Everyone knows about them - from young to old: and a professor whose salary is barely enough for food (for example, a professor at Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov receives less for his hard work than a trolleybus driver); and parents forced to pay their last hard-earned money for dubious educational services; and their children - schoolchildren and students, who very quickly felt the will and freedom from education.

Many schoolchildren, intoxicated by freedom from learning and diligence, have stopped studying, stopped honoring and listening to their parents and their teachers, especially those who, according to the good old tradition (and there are many of them), are trying to give the most precious thing - knowledge, and thereby show their love for to his disciples, and especially to those who have gone astray against their will. And there are several reasons for this. The first reason is why study diligently at school, when without any problems you can enter any university, even to any paid faculty of Moscow State University, which with great difficulty manages to maintain a high level of education. For this, knowledge is not needed at all, but money contributed by parents in the form of an educational dues is needed. At the same time, only money wins, and not common sense and not the traditional competition, which, through the level of knowledge, is the only one capable of opening the way for the most knowledgeable and prepared applicants to higher education. Numerous "universities" and "institutions" that have grown like mushrooms after warm summer rains on "free" soil, fertilized by educational "innovations", are ready to absorb all applicants with a guarantee of issuing a state-recognized diploma. They do not need knowledge of the applicant, but money. And the leaders of many such “universities” are not at all interested in the fact that parents pay the money, most often they are not at all rich and forced to work in different places and in more than one shift to the detriment of their health. There is also state funding in the domestic education system, but it dissolves into a commercial educational bacchanalia, which has also overwhelmed state universities.

The second reason for freedom from study is that in order to study well, one must work hard, one must educate oneself daily and hourly. And who wants to strain, as it is now fashionable to say, and work tirelessly when there are so many temptations around: and the Internet, which can draw young fragile hearts into a pool of vices and passions, from which neither parents nor teachers can free; and television, which elevates violence and depravity to the rank of a feat. All this taken together stupefies and devastates the soul of a person, in which conscience is etched, which in many respects distinguishes a person from an animal.

The third reason for disrespect for knowledge is that some smart and observant schoolchildren and students can see with the naked eye that it is not the people who have studied well and diligently who often make their way to power and seize the people's wealth.

Everyone knows perfectly well what all this leads to - television tries not to miss a single educational sensation. In Moscow, where, it would seem, there should be all the conditions for a full-fledged education, a secondary school was recently closed due to the low quality of education. Instead of sorting out and eliminating the cause, officials from education went along their only "correct" path. Is the school, teachers, students and their parents to blame for the fact that they have to reap the benefits of a rich "innovative" harvest in education. Another sensation - free from conscience and physically strengthened students beat their physical education teacher, and the filmed egregious episodes were posted on the Internet so that everyone could see that even at school there is a place for "feat", that there are "heroes" in our country. And there are a great many such mind-blowing sensations that have overwhelmed long-suffering Russia. Trouble and nothing more. “The most serious problems of modern man come from the fact that he has lost the sense of meaningful cooperation with God in his intention for humanity,” these are the words of the great Russian writer F.M. Dostoevsky most fully reflect the realities of being of the present time.

Without a doubt, there are good schools and gymnasiums in our country, and, in particular, Orthodox schools, where they give excellent knowledge in mathematics, physics, biology, the Russian language and literature and other classical subjects, and where they not only learn the secrets of life, but and teach to distinguish good from evil, respect and love their parents and teachers. Pupils in such schools experience the joy of learning, and they come home with enlightened, peaceful faces, and it does not occur to them to commit any sinful act, for which they would be ashamed and ashamed of their parents. But for some reason, such a true form of education, tested for centuries, bypasses both the state and the would-be education reformers and education officials - it is paid from the pocket of parents who wholeheartedly want to raise their children educated and enlightened; to grow up comprehensively developed people, in whose souls not the demons of hatred and gain would be instilled, but love for one's neighbor, compassion and mercy.

School troubles like an avalanche fall upon the institutions of higher learning, in most of which the conditions have been created not for learning, but for freedom from education to thrive in full bloom, and where, for the same reasons as in school, students do not want to bother studying. They will receive a diploma of "manager", "economist" and "lawyer", and influential and wealthy parents, and not fundamental and professional knowledge, will help some of them to seize the position of head in the prescribed manner. Savvy students observe that without special, highly qualified training, i.e. not being highly qualified specialists, one can miraculously acquire a high position, for example, take the post of head of a large industry, say, energy or the nuclear industry. And the result of such “management” is known to everyone: systematic shutdowns of power supply sources (with an excess of energy capacities in our country), which used to be extremely rare; the injection of huge financial resources into nuclear energy, which in many civilized countries is curtailed so as not to leave a dangerous radioactive legacy to their descendants; a man-made disaster at the Sayano-Shushenskaya HPP, where the management turned out to be free from technical and engineering knowledge.

What is the huge parental money spent on, which fell into the hands of a small handful of university “leaders” and a significant part of which passes by teachers and employees? Last year, the television program “Man and the Law” and other leading channels told the entire Russian people about this, including parents who love their children, telling how their money earned by honest labor is criminally squandered, using the example of the State University of Management, where, under the guise of repair Millions of rubles ended up in pockets of work, and where a search, arrest, and a criminal case were carried out on the facts of violation of the law. At the same university for the rector Lyalin A.M. two executive cars were bought, worth millions of rubles each, and many employees and teachers receive meager salaries, which are barely enough for travel and food. After a thorough investigation, the Investigative Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia at the end of last year sent materials to the Ministry of Education and Science for decisive action. After much thought and silence, by order of the ministry Lyalin A.M. yet he was fired for his "fruitful" work. And at the same university, he was enrolled as an adviser. The question is why? Is it not in order to continue to advise how to divide and rule and to further ruin the university and eradicate from it the engineering and economic direction, for which it was famous throughout Russia before the reign of Lyalin. Another question arises, why is the ministry removed from its direct duties?

Who needs such a ministry and why? Maybe it is necessary in order to introduce their crazy ideas about the introduction of a new state standard through a new law in education, in which there was no place for compulsory study of either mathematics, or physics, or chemistry, or biology, or the Russian language and literature, or geography, nor the foundations of Orthodox culture, which, taken together, form fundamental knowledge about nature and make a person enlightened, educated and educated, and the deeds of such a person will be directed not to destruction, but to creation and development. The minister's explanations about the proposed "innovations" look very ridiculous. Not happy with the new version of the standards, which differs little from the previous one. Is it really necessary to intervene at the highest level to put everything in its place? And why, then, is a huge army of ministerial and other education officials needed, for the maintenance of which quite a lot of money of all taxpayers is spent?

The subjects “Life safety” and “Physical culture” were put in the first places in the proposed standards, and a certain symbolic period was named - 2020. It can be assumed that by that time, as a result of all failed reforms, including “innovative” education reforms , the dying Russian nation will reach such a point, beyond which everything will be collapsed and destroyed to such an extent that only one field of activity will remain - the field of life safety of physically strong, but ignorant, ill-mannered and spiritually backward people, but by that time there will be no one to save .

The degradation of society and the extinction of any nation begins with the degradation of education and the human soul. Saving the soul of a person through the acquisition of spiritual and moral values, it is possible to save education from far-fetched and pernicious reformations. To do this, educational reformers must understand and firmly grasp a simple truth: education is not a paid service and not a product that can be sold as expensive as possible, but it is an invaluable creative process that nurtures well-mannered, enlightened and educated people capable of creating great things. miracles in the name of saving civilization and further development of all mankind.

Stepan Karpenkov , doctor of technical sciences professor, laureateState PrizeRussian Federation in the field of science and technology

INTEGRATION OF EDUCATION ^^YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY^^

POINT OF VIEW__________________________

FREEDOM IN EDUCATION: ESSENCE, REALITIES AND PROSPECTS

E.V. Ivanov, Associate Professor, Department of Pedagogy, Institute of Continuing Pedagogical Education, Novgorod State University. Yaroslav the Wise

The article presents some materials of the author's own research and reasoning on the problem of freedom, its general scientific and pedagogical essence and the possibilities of implementation in the practice of teaching and education. The scientific novelty and practical significance of the content of this work consists in revealing the theoretical essence of freedom as a pedagogical phenomenon, identifying and characterizing its main levels in the current practice of teaching and upbringing, as well as in the possibility of using the presented analytical calculations for a new understanding and adaptive instrumental development of the principle of freedom in the process. modern innovative search based on humanistic and cultural priorities.

The article presents the author's views on the concept of freedom, its scholarly and pedagogical essence and ways of realization in educational practice. Freedom is viewed as a pedagogical phenomenon; characteristics of its main levels in current practice of education are given, the ways of the implementation of the analysis results are presented.

The peculiar situation that has developed in the system of domestic education in the post-perestroika years is characterized by the search for new paradigms for the development of pedagogical science and practice based on humanistic and cultural priorities, the central, unifying core of which is the phenomenon of freedom, which has long since proven its viability and is constantly growing in strength. and relevance today.

Today, freedom has finally become one of the most significant individual and social values ​​of mankind, as well as the goal and condition for the development of the civilizational process as a whole and its individual components, including the education and upbringing of the younger generation. Meanwhile, this concept is very complex and, despite the centuries-old history of study, does not have an unambiguous scientific interpretation. As before, so now it is used very widely and is extrapolated to many life situations and processes, highlighting more and more facets in itself, which makes us rethink previous ideas and theoretically justified points of view.

Quite a lot of different words are usually used as key words in the definition of freedom, and the most common is “a conscious need

© E.V. Ivanov, 2003

bridge" and "opportunity". At the same time, both options are criticized by opponents. Opponents of understanding freedom as a “conscious necessity” quite reasonably say that there is some kind of predestination and predetermination here. Those who do not agree with its interpretation as "opportunities" reasonably draw associative parallels with arbitrariness and randomness.

According to the author, the essence of freedom is most accurately reflected in the second option (“opportunity”). However, in order to protect it from being confused with the other concepts mentioned above (“arbitrariness”, “randomness”), some clarifications are required. First, the opportunity must be realized by those who have it. Secondly, focusing attention in the pedagogical understanding of freedom not on one or two, but on all three of its main components (meaning freedom of will, choice and action), along with the possibility, one must always mean the ability of a person to one or another implementation of their will. And thirdly, the person himself must be understood and considered in all possible forms of his existence.

In view of the foregoing, we can give the following definition of freedom: freedom is a conscious opportunity and ability to

the ability to choose and act on the basis of internal motives and needs due to the characteristics of a person as a natural, spiritual and socio-cultural being. The child-oriented pedagogical understanding of this formulation determines the focus on the implementation of the principle of freedom at the level of positive “freedom for” with the creation of conditions conducive to this at the level of negative “freedom from”, taking into account the specific individual and social essence of a growing person.

An analysis of the accumulated experience in understanding and implementing the phenomenon of freedom in education makes it possible to identify and see the common characteristics of four possible levels of its manifestation: idealistic, maximally realistic, rationalistic and totalitarian.

The idealistic level of freedom in education is close to the philosophical interpretation of this concept in both positive (“freedom for”) and negative (“freedom from”) dimensions. It exists only in theory. Attempts to implement it in full in practice fail, forcing teachers to seek a compromise between the ideal and the realistically possible. If we turn to history, then, of course, the most striking pedagogical projection of freedom at the indicated level in its negative understanding, as “freedom from”, is the theory of “natural education” by J.-J. Rousseau, which, as is known, was not implemented in its original form, although the methodological and methodological approaches incorporated in it were actively interpreted in various concepts and practical experience. The main, fundamental ideas for this level are Rousseau's views on the nature of the child as ideal from birth and capable of self-development, but only under conditions of unlimited freedom of choice and action.

The mentioned practice-oriented concepts, which interpreted Rousseau's theory in their own way, as well as other more or less successfully existing

Most educational models (beginning with L.N. Tolstoy), which recognized freedom as the main principle of education and upbringing, form the highest possible level. In terms of its initial positions, in particular in the general understanding of the nature of the child and his freedom, it differs little from the idealistic one, however, in the plane of practical implementation, it involves the demarcation of broad and mobile boundaries of freedom of choice and action, which, it must be said, do not always coincide in various institutions. of this kind. This is due to the fact that, strictly following the pedo-centric postulate of pedagogy as “pedagogy emanating from the child”, the creators of free schools accumulate in their minds not only general, but also special, specific scientific-philosophical, psychological and pedagogical ideas, including and about the essence of man as a natural, spiritual and socio-cultural being and the patterns of his development in childhood and adolescence. This is the main explanation for the diversity and sometimes the external dissimilarity of educational institutions belonging to this level.

The next, third, level of freedom in education is rationalistic. Its essence lies in the fact that freedom of choice and action is dosed and varied with the help of external constraints in volumes dictated by pedagogical expediency. This expediency can be justified from a theoretical standpoint and from the standpoint of practical necessity and benefit both in line with humanistic and in line with authoritarian pedagogical ideology in their moderate forms. The unifying point here is that even in the case of recognizing the presence of good principles in the nature of the child, his ability for their self-development is denied and the need for direct external control and influence on the part of adults is justified both in the interests of the growing person himself and in the interests of society.

The last, totalitarian, level of freedom in education would be more accurate

INTEGRATION OF EDUCATION

called the level of denial of freedom, since it involves strict regulation of all school life, including the activities of the teacher and student. Such theories and educational institutions are created on the basis of ideas about the child as a carrier of innate and acquired destructive traits or as one of the links in the social mechanism of totalitarian regimes. A typical good example of this is the traditional Soviet school.

The global socio-cultural changes of the last fifteen years, which have covered all spheres of the country's life and are aimed at liberation from the negative totalitarian legacy, have led to the appearance in the public mind of views on man as a subject of his own development and on Russia as part of the world community, which is subject to universal laws of evolution and universal human values. All this could not but affect the domestic education, whose figures were actively engaged in the development of new ways of its development.

The stage of pedagogical searches and discussions found its first most significant logical conclusion in the Law of the Russian Federation “On Education”. It finally affirms the humanistic strategy, formulates the main principles and tasks, outlines the main ways and mechanisms for updating the modern education of the country. Meanwhile, proclaiming the need to move away from authoritarianism, the main regulatory document does not provide for significant systemic changes, and therefore is somewhat declarative in nature, without proposing radical measures, but only orienting towards a gradual movement away from the possible in the indicated direction. Having elevated the phenomenon of freedom to the rank of the most important principle of state policy in this area, the law still requires teachers to take paramount care about the assimilation by each student of the impersonal educational standards established from above, which, as a rule, are still achieved today.

standard and impersonal forms, methods and techniques that are netically connected with the traditional Soviet school. In general, we can say that the state, taking into account the new realities of life, orients teachers to solve the tasks they face in line with the humanistic ideology at the rationalistic level of freedom, but tries to do this on the old foundation of the authoritarian heritage, prolonging the agony of the basic educational paradigm of the past.

It is not surprising that, in contrast to the official school, which is inert in relation to everything new, various experimental projects are being developed in modern Russia and alternative educational institutions are beginning to appear, striving to overcome the emerging crisis phenomena, realizing the phenomenon of freedom at the highest possible level. However, by and large, they are all a “drop in the ocean” of traditional authoritarian pedagogy, which, despite criticism from all sides, continues to confidently occupy the main educational space of the country.

One of the most important and complex pedagogical and social problems that have not yet received proper theoretical understanding is the problem of the ever-widening gap of alienation between the world of children and the world of adults. It has long historical roots and centuries-old evolution in the process of family and social education, especially actualizing today. Meanwhile, no real ways have yet been found for its complete resolution.

Without setting ourselves the task of a comprehensive consideration of this issue, we will focus only on the analysis of some of its causal aspects related to various paradigmatic attitudes and the problems of this article.

With subject-object relations in line with the authoritarian pedagogical ideology, such a question, as a rule, does not arise, since what it is aimed at is considered a necessary condition.

ІІІІ1ІІІІIIIШ № 4,

viem or the inevitable cost of educational activities. Denying children the right to the full realization of their age-related needs and struggling with their various "negative" manifestations, parents and teachers forcibly impose on the younger generation formal morality, rules and norms adopted in a particular society, thereby causing a natural protest, expressed in a hidden or a clear resistance and desire to isolate themselves within the framework of their own world, inaccessible to adults, with its special subculture, different from the official one.

As for the humanistic paradigm settings, here the existence of the named problem is not denied, and its solution is seen in the transition to subject-subject relations and the recognition of the child's right to free development and manifestation of his "self". However, as the accumulated pedagogical experience shows, the proclamation of the inherent value of childhood and “childishness” with a formal approach to the implementation of these ideas does not solve, but, on the contrary, sometimes even exacerbates the situation, creating new artificial barriers. This is expressed, in particular, in the fact that a growing person (of course, not directly, but indirectly) is said, as it were: “Live, rejoice, enjoy your childhood, since there is almost no benefit from you for the family and society anyway, and your opinion about serious things does not interest us, because you are not able to say and do something sensible until you grow up and gain the necessary knowledge and experience.

In other words, both authoritarian pedagogical systems, forcibly “putting an adult’s head on the shoulders of a child,” and humanistic educational models aimed at ensuring a full-fledged life for the pupil of each period of childhood in accordance with age and individual characteristics and needs, ultimately strive for one thing - temporarily (and this period is getting longer and longer) to “isolate” the

a growing person from the adult world, if possible, “cultivate” him, and only after that allow him to really participate in the affairs of society and the state. The role of this “temporary isolator” is assigned to the school, which from the moment of its appearance has become, in fact, an official public institution that divides people into two opposing camps: those who are not yet “ripe”, i.e. did not become sufficiently full-fledged intellectually and socially, and those who received a matriculation certificate, having gone through many years of assimilating standardized, but often divorced from life, knowledge, skills and abilities.

Thus, from the above reasoning, it can be seen that the indicated problem can only be resolved in line with the humanistic pedagogical ideology by establishing truly trusting and respectful subject-subject relationships between the younger and older generations, for which it is necessary to equalize the rights of adults and children as much as possible and provide the latter with opportunities for free choice and action in the process of real, rather than formal participation in the creation and design of one's own and common (in the family, school, society) present and future. In practice, it is very difficult to model and implement such a situation. However, the direction of pedagogical efforts emerges quite clearly: it is necessary to more actively socialize a growing person in various spheres of life in a “fair community” and organize the educational process at the highest possible level of freedom.

In the West, the named and other problems of modern education have recently been trying to be resolved in line with the ideas of open learning. As for Russia, taking as a guideline the model of an open civil society of the Western type, our country began to adopt his ideas in the field of education, which, as you know, are inextricably linked with the ideas of

INTEGRATION OF EDUCATION

bauds and dialogue of cultures. At the same time, the axiological priorities corresponding to them began to play the role of basic in the process of organizing and implementing educational activities.

Modern domestic pedagogy, having freed itself from the tenets of communist ideology, emphasizes universal human values ​​as the fundamental foundations for educating the younger generation. On the whole, both the state, which enshrined it in the law and in the Doctrine of the Modernization of Education in Russia, and most of the public agree with this approach. Meanwhile, there is still no complete clarity on this issue, since the problem concerning the content of the declared values ​​and the specifics of their socio-cultural and personal acceptance has not been fully resolved.

It must be said that such a situation with its specific features is now also typical for the West, where, like in our country, two irreconcilable positions are once again colliding, whose representatives can be conditionally called “individualists” and “traditionalists”.

The ideas advocated by the “individualists” in their deepest essence go back to the views of the ancient Greek philosophers-sophists and, like them, cause rejection among broad social strata, as they preach the relativity of certain social values. According to the “individualists”, there is nothing unequivocally good or bad in this world. Therefore, everyone has the right to make a free choice and act according to their own scale of values, based on a subjective worldview and attitude, limiting themselves only to what can harm others. In the pedagogical plane, such an axiological interpretation is found in the concepts of both domestic and foreign supporters of "free education", idealizing the nature of the child and his ability to self-disclosure and self-development.

As for the “traditionalists”, both in Russia and in the West they hold

live in this issue a different, conservative, point of view, recognizing and defending the objectivity and stability of the system of values ​​created by mankind in the process of its historical and cultural development. All this is concretely reflected in their views on education, where the leading role in shaping the worldview and personal qualities of students is assigned not to nature and a properly organized environment, but to the teacher and the knowledge he teaches.

As can be seen from the foregoing, neither in the first nor in the second case can we say that certain individually or socially recognized values ​​are universal, since their content is always conditioned either by subjective or historical, cultural and social political determinants. Then what is meant by the meaning of the word "universal" in this context, and in general, is it permissible in relation to the category "value"?

If we analyze the situation in the world of the last centuries and decades, we cannot fail to notice that the axiological priorities formed in the West are becoming more and more dominant. The way of life and thinking adopted there in various ways “occupies” other civilizations, including Russia. Meanwhile, anthropological, cultural, psychological, and social studies of recent years clearly show that what is good for one culture is not always acceptable, and sometimes even destructive for another. Western values, among which one of the main ones is freedom in its negative sense, can cause, if not complete, then partial rejection from other peoples or, in the case of purposeful or indirect instillation in the process of education, lead to a gradual loss of new generations of their cultural roots. and identity. All this must be taken into account in the process of modernization of domestic education, because the desire to quickly become "their own

di strangers”, recklessly recognizing and trying on “universal” Western models, may result in the alienation of our children in the course of education not only from adults, but also from the surrounding heritage of the material and spiritual culture of their native country.

The modern world is a multicultural integrative space in which different peoples, countries and civilizations coexist in a mode of constant, multi-level and multi-channel dialogue. The role of the main channel in this case is given to education, which opens access for a growing person to other socio-cultural meanings and images. In turn, comprehending the content of various cultures and experiencing their influence, the cognizing subject will certainly face the problem of cultural self-determination, which is far from simple in conditions of openness and freedom.

The history of Russia shows that blind copying of foreign cultural samples often leads to a negative result. This fully applies to attempts to inculcate Western-style negative freedom on Russian soil. Unable to cope with its excess, our compatriots sometimes made the irrevocable choice of giving up freedom in favor of totalitarianism.

In recent years, we have experienced a similar situation. Unable to digest the first big portion of negative freedom (since the internal boundaries

freedoms for the majority of Russian people brought up in the Soviet era turned out to be already external), our society and the school, as its most important institution, began to balance on the verge between the old and the new, more and more leaning towards the first.

To avoid such a development of events, it is necessary to carry out full-scale integration into the world community only after acquiring and recognizing one's own cultural identity. A true dialogue of cultures is not the imposition of one's own or blind copying of someone else's experience and values, but equal mutual communication and mutual enrichment. And therefore, only having formed the inner, spiritual freedom of a person, characteristic of the national cultural tradition, we will be able to painlessly and to our advantage significantly expand the boundaries of external freedom.

Thus, we can say that pedagogy today has an important task to help a growing person in the process of acculturation of his personality through the humanization of the educational process, which involves the realization of the phenomenon of freedom at a rationalistic level with a gradual transition to the maximum real possible. At the same time, it is worth relying mainly on one's own cultural and pedagogical traditions, which, however, should not prevent the creative use and adaptation of the best foreign examples.