Formation of the Ukrainian Military Organization and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.
Formation of the Ukrainian Military Organization and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.
Should the authors of school programs, textbooks, manuals, at least morally, be responsible for what they "created"?
I can not agree with the first sentence of the article by O. Pometun and N. Gupan "What should be the school program on the history of Ukraine":
"Controversies in Ukrainian society regarding the reform of school history education, which do not subside." This is nothing but a myth.
Where can the controversy in the absence of systematic discussions, discussions, professional conferences, "round tables", the presence of a center that would organize and coordinate the work of scientists, methodologists, teachers, practitioners engaged in serious experimental work, which would end with research not by the "cloud-theoretical" method, but on the basis of practical activity?
You should not travel far. Let’s analyze the January-May 2018 publications of our Ukrainian journals to see the primitivism of modern "scientific and methodological thought": lesson outlines, articles on historical topics, fragments of manuals or manuals, test tasks,… tenth time described active methods and techniques , advertising future textbooks for 10th grade on the principle of "choose me", etc. No scientific article on the content of school history, a new model of historical education, reasonable proposals for the content and structure of courses! None! We’ve had a lot of professional magazines since independence, but there’s nothing to read! Their scientific and methodological level cannot even be compared with the publications of the late 90’s and early narrative argument topics 2000’s.
Where are these disputes? Maybe in the laboratory of social science education at the Institute of Pedagogy of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences? But it is more like a closed club, formed of proven and dedicated people not so much to science as to its leaders. The laboratory has not become an independent center of quality research, experimental work, the results of which would be used in teaching practice and radically update the entire social science education of the modern Ukrainian school. And "voyages" by the regional centers of Ukraine of the author’s collective of the "new" program are not a way of discussion. It is reminiscent of Soviet agitation, the agitation brigade method.
A quality scientific and methodological product does not require additional explanations and explanations. I read – and understood all the benefits. And if they are absent, then you need to go and indicate where they are "hidden" in the author’s plan.
Unfortunately, we do not have a professional environment of research and teaching staff involved in school history, discussion and discussion of which would become a mandatory norm for both professional communication and collective decision-making. Nobody will give us a model of content, structure of school history courses. We need to come together, discuss, agree and make decisions. There is no other way. But today another tradition dominates, not scientific, but "grandma’s": everything is decided behind the scenes, in small groups under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and Science, based on individual preferences and invitations, using the principle of "let – do not let ", those who" bark "a lot – enemies of the" sacred cows ". This is the objective reality.
About modernization, which doesn’t really smell …
What is happening today with school history and what, among other things, the authors of the article are involved in, cannot be called modernization. Why? Modernization involves modernization, it is synonymous with progressive change. School curricula have not really been updated and are not updated. They just correspond. O. Pometun and N. Gupan are also involved in this rewriting. And how can you disagree with the authors of the article when you read: "these updates are not always caused by needs, such as decommunization or the final dispellation of Soviet myths." A quote that brilliantly illustrates the activities of the previous team to compile (rewrite) curricula initiated by the Minister of Education D. Tabachnyk. Let’s remember at least sporadically.
Illiterately rewritten, and in fact destroyed, propaedeutic course of history of Ukraine for 5th grade What S. Terno and the author of this article were not afraid to say. And how was the history of Ukraine "modernized"? In the previous edition (2005), created by the same authors, there was the "Ukrainian-Moscow Treaty of 1654", which in the 2012 edition became the "Ukrainian-Russian Treaty of 1654"]. And where did they disappear: "Moscow-Ukrainian war of 1658-1659", "Chudniv campaign of 1660 and the conclusion of the Slobodyshche agreement", "Policy of the Muscovite government on the Zaporozhian Sich", "Military and political actions of the Russian tsar against the Ukrainians "," Offensive tsar on Ukrainian culture "and dozens of other topics? They are absent in the 2012 program. Why? Because the compiler adjusted to the preferences of the new government. And if, as you claim, "the selection and construction of the content of the textbook and even its methodological apparatus largely depends on the quality of the curriculum," then what quality of programs concluded in 2012, taking into account the then political order. Can individuals who do not create a new one, but rewrite the old one and do not even focus on what has already happened, apply for a "professional discussion" of the programs?
About the essence of "professionalism" "
I think that any criticism and remarks should always be based on evidence, indisputable facts that allow us to draw conclusions. It seems that the authors of the article have no idea about the "constant increase in the amount of material" and "overload, compared to all (!) Previous versions of the programs of the relevant period during the independence of Ukraine."
This is not quite true. And experts who really really study the content of school history, programs, textbooks, know about it.
The first program (project) of Ukrainian history for 10th grade. published in April 1992, it proposed a period covering the period 1917-1945: from the "Origin of the Central Council" to "Ukraine in the Last Period of the War (1944-1945)."
I reread the old program of the 10th grade and understand that it lacks the manipulations and "weather vane" inherent in the editions of the 2010 and 2012 programs.
"War of Soviet Russia against the UPR", "Second War of Soviet Russia against the UPR", "Ukraine during the Second World War". Western Ukraine and the geopolitical interests of the USSR and Nazi Germany. … Soviet-German war ".
And now for comparison we will take the program of history of Ukraine (standard level) in edition of 2010 (authors: OI Pometun, NM Gupan, GO Freiman). The theme of "The War of Soviet Russia against the UPR" evaporated. There is only "The struggle of the Bolsheviks with the UCR." What Bolsheviks? And in the 11th grade, the compilers of the program, in order to satisfy both "ours and yours" Theme 1, will voice a combined Ukraine during the Second World War (1939-1945). The Great Patriotic War (1941 – 1945) ". The de facto annexation of the eastern territory of Poland (western Ukrainian lands) by the Soviet Union will be called" the entry of the Red Army into the territory of Western Ukraine. "And such rewritings abound in the whole program.
But let’s go back to the 1992 program, which consistently describes all the topics, detailed by presenting a large number of facts. I don’t remember anyone in those days with so many hours we have today (2/1), lack of textbooks (I’m not talking about alternative textbooks and sources of information, which at that time simply did not exist) complaining about the amount of educational material.
The second program (edited in 1996), concluded on a thematic basis, provided for a lesson division of educational material in the previous chronological boundaries (1917 – 1945).
Significant changes in the content and, accordingly, in chronological order occurred only in the third program (1998 edition). The period from 1914 to 1939 was studied here. In fact, this version of the program, as practice has shown, turned out to be the most optimal. The period 1914-1939 was duplicated in the edition of the 2001 program. Then it will not be implemented for 10-12 grades of the 2005 programs.
And from 2010 the active rewriting of programs by the author’s team under the direction of OI Pometun will begin. In the edition of the program of history of Ukraine for 10 class will change again chronological borders (1900 – 1939) and even time for studying of a course – 35 hours. This program will be the most difficult to process the proposed content (period of 39 years, a large number of facts, 1 hour per week). I claim this both as a scientist and as a teacher-practitioner who worked at the standard level in the regional lyceum in Rivne.
So the program of history of Ukraine for 10 classes. in the 2017 edition, this is not yet the "biggest disaster" in "" compared to all "programs.
The authors of the article are concerned that the program is not only overloaded with "unjustified transfer to the 10th grade of the entire chapter from the 11th course – the history of World War II", but also other topics received a significant additional number of questions for students and all within the same 1, 5 teaching hours per week ". Against the background of these remarks, it is simply a sin not to quote the program on the history of Ukraine (Standard level) in 2010. This edition is characterized by neglect of psychological and pedagogical features, it lacks justification and standardization of volume and content, there are factual errors.For example, I will give a complete list of only one topic that students had to work on for 2 hours (!).
Topic 7. Western Ukrainian lands 1921 – 1939. Legal status of Eastern Galicia and Ukrainian north-western lands as part of Poland. Sedimentation. Industry and agriculture. Ukrainian cooperation. Economic and social situation of the population. Political situation. "Pacification". Deployment of the Ukrainian nationalist movement. Formation of the Ukrainian Military Organization and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Manifestations of cultural life. Ukrainian lands in Romania. Economic and social situation of the Ukrainian population. Activities of Ukrainian political parties and movements. Cultural life. The situation in Transcarpathia as part of Czechoslovakia. Economic, social and cultural life. Currents in the socio-political life of Ukrainians: Russophilism, Rusynism, Ukrainophilism. Carpathian Ukraine. "Carpathian Sich". A. Voloshin.
But the "Content of educational material" itself is flowers, in comparison with the requirements developed by the authors of the program.