Pedagogical education system of A. Makarenko

Makarenko A. S. Pedagogical works: In 8 volumes. T. 4 M.: Pedagogika, 1984.

Purpose of education

IN pedagogical theory, oddly enough, the goal educational work turned into an almost forgotten category 1 . At the last All-Russian Scientific Meeting on Pedagogical Sciences, the purpose of education was not discussed. One might think that scientific pedagogy has nothing to do with this issue. In special pedagogical contexts, it is unacceptable to talk only about the ideal of education, as is appropriate to do in philosophical statements. The teacher-theorist is required to solve the problem not of the ideal, but of the paths to this ideal. This means that pedagogy must develop the most complex question about the goal of education and the method of approaching this goal. Likewise, we cannot talk only about vocational training new generation. We must also think about cultivating this type of behavior, such characters, such personal qualities that are necessary for the Soviet state in the era of the dictatorship of the working class, at the moment of the formation of a classless society. How are we dealing with this problem? At the beginning of the revolution, our pedagogical writers and speakers, having accelerated on Western European pedagogical springboards, jumped very high and easily “took” such ideals as the “harmonious personality.” Then they replaced the harmonious personality with a “communist man,” reassuring themselves in the depths of their souls with the practical consideration that it was “all the same.” A year later they expanded the ideal and proclaimed that we must educate “a fighter full of initiative.” From the very beginning, it was equally clear to preachers, scientists, and outside spectators that with such an abstract formulation of the question of the “ideal,” no one would be able to check the pedagogical work anyway, and therefore the preaching of these ideals was completely safe. The pedagogical arena increasingly became the property of pedology, and by 1936 teachers were left with the most insignificant “territories” that did not go beyond the boundaries of private methods. Pedology hardly hid its indifference to our goals. And what goals could stem from “environment and heredity”, other than the pedologist’s fatal following of biological and genetic whims? Pedologists managed to maintain the most priestly expression during such manipulations, and we listened to them with open ears and were even a little surprised: where did people get such deep learning? However, they were not only surprised, but also imitated. A. S. Bubnov 2 in his article in “Communist Education” (No. 5-6 for 1936) cites a case when figures in scientific pedagogy vol. Kamenev and Pinkevich, in an explanatory note to the program on general pedagogy, wrote: “The system of arranging material is not subject to individual abstract “goals”, “topics”, “questions”... but to the upbringing and teaching of children of a certain age.” If age is the only guiding principle of pedagogy, then, of course, the word goals can be put in ironic quotation marks. But we have the right to be interested: why suddenly in our country the education of the younger generation has become a toy of age, biological, psychological and other sympathies? Why is there such contempt for the very idea of ​​purposefulness? These questions can be answered in different ways. Maybe the reasons are simple indifference to our lives and our goals. Well, if the matter is a conscious intention to crumple our educational work, to make it an indifferent and empty training of the individual within the limits of those possibilities that open up by themselves in this individual: the individual is able to learn to read - great, let him study; she shows an inclination towards sports - also not bad; She doesn’t show any inclinations, and the bread for a pedologist is a “difficult” personality, and you can show off her to your heart’s content. It is difficult to count the wounds inflicted by pedology on the cause of socialist construction in its most important area—the education of youth. This is a disease of theory, and not even of theory, but of theorists so blinded by pedology that they have lost the ability to see the true sources of theory. In this sense, the disease looks rather unsympathetic. The essence of this disease is not only in the number of pedological positions that have survived to this day, not only in some emptiness that has formed in the place of the pedological Olympus, the essence is in the poisoning of our very thinking. Scientific thought, even in sincere criticism of pedological statements, still contains pedological vestiges. The infection is quite deep. The infection began even before the revolution in the nests of experimental pedagogy 3, which was characterized by a gap between the study of the child and his upbringing 4. Bourgeois pedagogy at the beginning of the 20th century, torn apart by numerous schools and innovators, by endless fluctuations from extreme individualism to formless and uncreative biologism, could seem like a revolutionary science, because it acted under the banner of the struggle against official school drill and official bigotry. But for a sensitive ear, even then there were reasons to be very suspicious of this “science”, which was devoid, first of all, of a real scientific basis. Even then one could see in her very dubious inclinations towards biological excursions, which in essence represented a clear attempt to revise the Marxist concept of man. The biological tendencies 5 of experimental pedagogy and then pedology repel every Marxist teacher. And it is in vain to think that our teaching is confused by pedology. If anyone is confused, it is not teaching. We are able to fulfill the party's call - "to restore the rights of pedagogy and teachers" 6 - only under one condition: by decisively breaking with the indifferent attitude towards our state and socio-political goals. At the All-Russian Conference on Pedagogical Sciences in April 1937. a special report was delivered: “Methodological principles of educational work.” What does this report say about the goals of education, and how does the method follow from these goals? The report looks as if the goals of education were well known to the author and listeners for a long time; one only needs to talk about methods and means of achieving them. Only for the solemn finale, separated from the rest of the presentation by a certain dash, the speaker proclaims: “They (the principles) are based on the principle of a communist orientation, which is the general guiding dialectical principle of education, since it determines the content, methods, and organization of all educational work.” . And at the very end: “This principle requires from the teacher partisanship in his work, political vigilance, and a deep understanding of the goals, means and conditions of education.” These exact endings have been observed in pedagogical writings before. High perfection has always been required from a teacher; the theorist has always liked to say two words: “a teacher must.” And what is the duty of the theorist himself, does he himself have a “deep understanding of the goals, means and conditions”? Perhaps there is, but why, in this case, does the theorist keep his wealth secret, why does he not reveal to his listeners the depths of his knowledge? Why does he sometimes allow himself to recite something about goals and conditions only “at the end of the curtain”, why don’t you see and feel in the very presentation of these goals? And finally, how long will such a theorist get away with the well-known statement that our education should be communist? When I protested in my book “Pedagogical Poem” against the weakness of pedagogical science, I was accused at all crossroads of disrespect for theory, of being a handicraft, of denying science, of neglecting the cultural heritage. But here in front of me is a special report on educational methods, proposed at a special scientific meeting. The report does not mention a single scientific name, there is no reference to a single scientific position, there is no attempt to apply any scientific logic. The report is essentially an ordinary homely discussion, an average brew of worldly wisdom and good wishes. Only in some places are the ears of the famous German teacher Herbart visible, who, by the way, was also revered by the tsarist official pedagogy as the author of the so-called educational teaching. At the beginning of the above report it is said that, despite the improvement, we also have shortcomings. The disadvantages are as follows: a) no reliable system and consistency in the organization of the teacher’s educational work; b) educational work occurs from case to case, mainly in connection with individual offenses of students; c) there is a gap in education in the organization of educational work; d) there is a gap in the upbringing, training and guidance of children; e) cases of insensitive approach are observed. These, to put it modestly, shortcomings take on a very expressive appearance if we add one more to them: the vagueness of the question in what direction, towards what goals this educational work “flows,” which does not have a system and consistency, lives from case to case, decorated with various "disconnections" and "insensitive approaches". The author admits that “educational work is essentially in the nature of a protective influence and comes down to the fight against negative manifestations in the behavior of students, that is, one of the theses of the petty-bourgeois theory of free education is being implemented in practice.” "...The educational influence of the teacher begins in such cases only after the students have committed an offense." Therefore, we can only envy those children who have committed misdeeds. They are still being educated. The author seems to have no doubt that they are being raised correctly. I would like to know how they are raised, what goals are guided in their upbringing. As for children without misconduct, their upbringing “flows” to God knows where. Having devoted three quarters of the report to the shortcomings, the speaker moves on to his positive credo. It looks very virtuous: “Raising children means instilling in them positive qualities (honesty, truthfulness, conscientiousness, responsibility, discipline, love of learning, socialist attitude to work, Soviet patriotism, etc.) and on this basis correcting existing their shortcomings." Everything about this cute “scientific” enumeration delights me. What I like most is "etc." Since this “positive quality” is preceded by “Soviet patriotism,” one can hope that “etc.” it will be nice too. And what subtlety in the concepts: on the one hand - honesty, on the other - conscientiousness, and between them, surrounded by virtues, like cotton wool, is placed “truthfulness”. The view is wonderfully pleasant! What reader would not shed a tear when he hears that love is not forgotten, for the first time, of course, to study. And look how carefully the word “discipline” is written! And this is serious, because he faces “responsibility.” But a declaration is one thing, and everyday work is another thing 7. In the declarations there is communist education, and in a particular case - an illegible jumble of idle finds, poisoned by pedological inert fatalism 8. Here is the “consultation” section in No. 3 of “Communist Enlightenment” for last year. Answer to Comrade Nemchenko: “When you have to have a conversation with a child or teenager about his violation of the internal rules of the school, about his committing an act unacceptable for a schoolchild, this conversation must be conducted in a calm, even tone. The child must feel that the teacher, even when using measures of influence, does not do this out of anger, does not consider it as an act of revenge, but solely as a duty that the teacher performs in the interests of the child." What purpose guides such advice? Why should a teacher act as a dispassionate mentor, delivering teaching in a “even” voice? Who doesn’t know that it is precisely such teachers, who have nothing behind their souls except “duty”, that disgust the children, and their “even voice” makes the most repulsive impression? What positive personality traits should be cultivated by the recommended dispassion? Even more interesting is the answer to Comrade Pozdnyakov. It describes in rather gentle colors a case when a teacher discovered a thief who had stolen three rubles from a friend. The teacher did not tell anyone about his discovery, but spoke with the person who stole it in private. “None of the students in the class ever found out who stole it, including the girl from whom the money was stolen.” According to the “consultation”, the student who committed this act has since become more diligent in his studies and has excellent discipline. The consultant is delighted: “You approached him sensitively, did not disgrace him in front of the whole class, did not tell his father, and the boy appreciated this sensitivity... After all, there was no need for the students of your class to be brought up on the act of the boy who stole money, but You would have inflicted a severe internal wound on this boy." It is worth dwelling on this “Christmas” incident to find out how great its distance from communist upbringing is. First of all, we note that such “sensitive” mastery is possible in any bourgeois school; there is nothing fundamentally ours in it. This is a common case of paired moralizing, when both the teacher and the pupil stand in a tête-a-tête position. The consultant is confident that a positive act of education has taken place here. Maybe, but what kind of upbringing? Let's take a closer look at the boy, whose act was hidden from the team. According to the consultant, the fact that the boy “appreciated this sensitivity” is very important. Is not it? The boy remained conscious of his independence from the public opinion of the team; for him, the Christian forgiveness of the teacher was decisive. He has not survived his responsibility to the team; his morality begins to take shape in the form of individual settlements with the teacher. This is not our morality. In his life, the boy will meet many people. Will his moral personality really be built in random combinations with their views? And if he meets with a Trotskyist, what methods of resistance have he developed for such a meeting? The morality of a solitary consciousness is, at best, the morality of a “good” person, and for the most part it is the morality of a double-dealer. But it's not just about the boy. There is also a class, that is, a collective, one of whose members committed the theft. According to the consultant, “there was no need for the students in the class to be taught the boy’s behavior.” Strange. Why is there no need? A theft has occurred in the team, and the teacher considers it possible to do without mobilizing public opinion on this matter. He allows the class to think whatever they want, to suspect anyone of stealing; ultimately, he instills in the class complete indifference to such cases; the question is, where will our people get the experience of fighting the enemies of the collective, where will the experience of passion and vigilance come from, how will the collective learn to control the individual? Now, if the teacher handed over the case of theft to the consideration of the collective, and I propose even more - to the decision of the collective, then each student would be faced with the need to actively participate in the social struggle, then the teacher would have the opportunity to unfold some kind of moral picture in front of the class , give children positive blueprints for doing the right thing. And every student who experienced the emotion of decision and condemnation would thereby be drawn into the experience of moral life. Only in such collective instrumentation is true communist education possible. Only in this case will both the entire team and each individual student come to a sense of the strength of the team, to confidence in its rightness, to pride in their discipline and their honor. It goes without saying that carrying out such an operation requires great tact and great skill from the teacher. With the most superficial analysis, at every step we can be convinced that our pedagogical movement in a particular case is not in the direction of the communist personality, but somewhere to the side. Therefore, in shaping the personality and personal details of the new person, we must be extremely careful and have good political sensitivity. This political sensitivity is the first sign of our teaching qualifications. In addition, we must always remember one more circumstance, which is extremely important. No matter how integral a person may appear to us as a broad abstraction, people are still very diverse material for education, and the “product” we produce will also be diverse. General and individual personality traits in our project form very intricate knots. The most dangerous thing is the fear of this complexity and this diversity. This fear can manifest itself in two forms: the first consists in the desire to cut everyone off with one number, to squeeze a person into a standard template, to cultivate a narrow series of human types. The second form of fear is a passive following of each individual, a hopeless attempt to cope with the millions of pupils with the help of scattered fuss with each person individually. This is a hypertrophy of the “individual” approach. Both fears are not of Soviet origin, and the pedagogy guided by these fears is not our pedagogy: in the first case it will approach the old official norms, in the second case - to pedology. An organizational task worthy of our era and our revolution can only be the creation of a method that, being general and unified, in at the same time, it makes it possible for each individual to develop their own characteristics and preserve their individuality. Such a task would be absolutely impossible for pedagogy if it were not for Marxism, which long ago resolved the problem of the individual and the collective. It is quite obvious that, when starting to solve our particular pedagogical task, we should not be wise. We must only understand well the position of the new man in the new society. Socialist society is based on the principle of collectivity. It should not contain a solitary individual, sometimes bulging out like a pimple, sometimes crushed into roadside dust, but rather a member of the socialist collective. In the Soviet Union there cannot be an individual outside the collective and therefore there cannot be a separate personal fate and personal path and happiness opposed to the fate and happiness of the collective. There are many such collectives in socialist society: the general Soviet public consists entirely of such collectives, but this does not mean that teachers are relieved of the duty to seek and find perfect collective forms in their work. The school community, a unit of Soviet children's society, must first of all become the object of educational work. When educating an individual, we must think about educating the entire team. In practice, these two problems will be solved only jointly and only in one general way. At every moment of our influence on the individual, these influences must necessarily also be an influence on the collective. And vice versa, each of our touches on the collective will necessarily be the education of each individual included in the collective. These provisions are, in essence, generally known. But in our literature they were not accompanied by an accurate study of the problem of the collective. Special research is needed about the team. The collective, which should be the first goal of our education, must have very definite qualities that clearly follow from its socialist character. It may be impossible to list all these qualities in a short article, but I will indicate the main ones. A. The team unites people not only in a common goal and in common work, but also in the general organization of this work. The common goal here is not a random coincidence of private goals, as in a tram car or in a theater, but precisely the goal of the entire team. The relation between a general and a particular goal for us is not a relation of opposites, but only a relation between the general (and therefore mine) and the particular, which, while remaining only mine, will be summed up into the general in a special order. Each action of an individual student, each of his success or failure should be regarded as a failure against the background of the common cause, as success in the common cause. Such pedagogical logic should literally permeate every school day, every movement of the team. B. The team is part of Soviet society, organically connected with all other teams. He bears the first responsibility to society, he bears the first duty to the entire country, only through the collective does each member enter society. This is where the idea of ​​Soviet discipline comes from. In this case, every student will understand the interests of the team and the concepts of duty and honor. Only in such instrumentation is it possible to foster harmony of personal and common interests, to cultivate that sense of honor that in no way resembles the old ambition of an arrogant rapist. IN. Achieving the goals of the team, common work, duty and honor of the team cannot become a game of random whims of individuals. A team is not a crowd. The collective is a social organism, therefore, it has management and coordination bodies authorized primarily to represent the interests of the collective and society. The experience of collective life is not only the experience of being in the neighborhood with other people, it is a very complex experience of expedient collective movements, among which the most prominent place is occupied by the principles of command, discussion, subordination to the majority, subordination of comrade to comrade, responsibility and consistency. Bright and broad prospects are opening up for teaching work in Soviet schools. The teacher is called upon to create this exemplary organization, preserve it, improve it, and pass it on to new teaching staff. Not paired moralizing, but tactful and wise leadership of the correct growth of the team - this is his calling. D. The Soviet collective stands on the principled position of the world unity of working humanity. This is not just an everyday association of people, it is part of the battle front of humanity in the era of world revolution. All the previous properties of the collective will not resonate if the pathos of the historical struggle that we are experiencing does not live in its life. All other qualities of the team should be united and nurtured in this idea. The collective must always, literally at every step, have examples of our struggle; it must always feel ahead of itself the Communist Party, leading it to true happiness. From these provisions about the collective flow all the details of personal development. We must graduate from our schools energetic and ideological members of socialist society, capable without hesitation, always, at every moment of their lives, of finding the correct criterion for personal action, capable at the same time of demanding from others correct behavior. Our pupil, no matter who he is, can never act in life as a bearer of some kind of personal perfection, only as a kind or fair man. He must always act, first of all, as a member of his team, as a member of society, responsible for the actions not only of himself, but also of his comrades. Particularly important is the area of ​​discipline in which we, teachers, have sinned the most. Until now, we have a view of discipline as one of the many attributes of a person and sometimes only as a method, sometimes only as a form. In a socialist society, free from any otherworldly foundations of morality, discipline becomes not a technical, but a necessarily moral category. Therefore, the discipline of inhibition is absolutely alien to our team, which now, due to some misunderstanding, has become the alpha and omega of the educational wisdom of many teachers. Discipline expressed only in prohibitive norms is the worst kind moral education in a Soviet school. In our school society there must be the discipline that exists in our party and throughout our entire society, the discipline of moving forward and overcoming obstacles, especially obstacles that lie in people. In a newspaper article it is difficult to present a detailed picture of the details in the education of the individual; this requires special research. It is obvious that our society and our revolution provide the most comprehensive data for such research. Our pedagogy will inevitably and quickly come to the formulation of goals as soon as it abandons the inertia acquired from pedology in relation to the goal. And in our practice, in the everyday work of our army of teachers, even now, despite all the pedological belchings, the idea of ​​expediency actively stands out. Every good, every honest teacher sees before himself the great political goal of educating a citizen and fights persistently to achieve this goal. Only this explains the truly global success of our social and educational work, which has created such a wonderful generation of our youth. It will be all the more appropriate for theoretical thought to take part in this success.

MAKARENKO ANTON SEMENOVICH (1888-1939), teacher and writer. Russia, USSR.
He grew up in the family of a master painter (the village of Belopole, Kharkov province). In 1905 he graduated from the city school and pedagogical courses and was appointed a teacher at a two-class railway school. And in 1914-1917. studied at the Poltava Teachers' Institute. Upon graduation, he became the head of the higher primary school in Kryukovo. Already here MAKARENKO became thoroughly interested in pedagogy, looking for something new in educational work both with individual students and with the team.
Did the October Revolution play a decisive role in the pedagogical fate of MAKARENKO, as was written about it before? Hardly. Most likely, with his talent, MAKARENKO would still have succeeded as a teacher. Of course, the first years of Soviet power and its actions in the field of public education were inspiring and involved in the search. But several years have passed, and the situation is changing, a period of “creativity with caution” begins, and then strict control. It is quite possible that, under favorable conditions, his socio-pedagogical activities would have achieved even more amazing results.
The MAKARENKO phenomenon began in 1920, when he organized a labor colony for juvenile offenders. Here the teacher succeeded in the main thing - he found strong remedy upbringing, which I became the team of students themselves. An important role in its creation was played by MAKARENKO’s authority, his patience, firmness, care for teenagers, and justice. People were drawn to him as to a father, looking for truth and protection. In the colony, which received the name of Gorky, a system of structural interactions in the team was determined: assets, division into detachments, a council of commanders, external paraphernalia (banner, bugler signals, report, uniform), rewards and punishments, traditions. Later MAKARENKO formulated laws of team development, the most important of which he considered the “system of perspective lines” and the “principle of parallel pedagogical influence.”
MAKARENKO combined education in a team with correctly labor education. The work of the colonists was organized into groups and combined with study. And life kept throwing up new problems. Paradoxically, it turned out that a well-functioning work system can cause calm and relaxation. MAKARENKO believed that this was precisely why the internal development colony named after Gorky. He found a way out in setting a new task - “the conquest of Kuryazh.” About 130 colonists left their old established household and voluntarily moved to the dilapidated Kuryazh to help 280 unruly street children become human. The risk paid off; the friendly team of Gorky residents relatively quickly restored order in the new place, and not by force. The pedagogy of the MAKARENKO team worked another time, when in 1927 he simultaneously became the head of the Dzerzhinsky colony, transferring 60 of his students to it. Since 1929, MAKARENKO retained only the last colony, which soon became fully self-sufficient: complex production of electric drills and cameras was established.
Today, reproaches and accusations are being made against MAKARENKO about the barracks discipline he allegedly introduced in the colony, the authoritarianism of the teacher himself and the team he created, disdain for the Personality, complicity in the formation of the cult of the party and Stalin. But are they justified? The ideas of personal development in a team, if not publicly announced by MAKARENKO as the goal of his pedagogical system, were successfully implemented in practice. The communes worked daily for 4 hours, and their free time was devoted to well-organized leisure. The commune had a club, a library, clubs, sport sections, cinema. In the summer there were hiking trips to the Caucasus, Crimea. Those who wished to continue their education studied at the workers' faculty and entered universities. There are statistics: over the 15 years of its work (1920-1935), about 8,000 delinquents and homeless people passed through the teams created by MAKARENKO, who became worthy people and qualified specialists. Of course, like any teacher, MAKARENKO also did not avoid mistakes and failures.
Since 1936, MAKARENKO left his pedagogical activity, moves to Moscow and is engaged in literary work. Here he survived the tragic years of 1937 and 1938.
MAKARENKO’s experience is unique, just as the teacher himself is unique. Few people in the history of pedagogy were able to so successfully translate their theory into practice and achieve impressive results when dealing with such difficult students. The exaltation of MAKARENKO began back in the 30s, and for a long time he was considered perhaps the most outstanding Soviet and even domestic teacher. Let us recall, however, that neither during MAKARENKO’s life nor after his death the authorities, while ordering the study of his pedagogical system, were in no hurry to implement it, although there were plenty of colonies and corresponding “human material”. By the way, the same fate befell Shatsky’s talented experiment with the children’s community. Only a few teachers resorted to MAKARENKO’s experience, some of them were his students at one time. The name and works of MAKARENKO are widely known abroad.

Purpose of education

In pedagogical theory, oddly enough, the purpose of educational work has become an almost forgotten category. (...)
An organizational task worthy of our era and our revolution can only be the creation of a method that, being general and unified, at the same time, enables each individual to develop his own characteristics and preserve his individuality.
It is quite obvious that, when starting to solve our particular pedagogical task, we should not be wise. We must only understand well the position of the new man in the new society. Socialist society is based on the principle of collectivity. It should not contain a solitary individual, sometimes bulging out like a pimple, sometimes crushed into roadside dust, but rather a member of the socialist collective.
In the Soviet Union there cannot be an individual outside the collective and therefore there cannot be a separate personal fate and personal path and happiness opposed to the fate and happiness of the collective.
In a socialist society there are many such groups:
The broad Soviet public consists entirely of precisely such groups, but this does not mean at all that teachers are relieved of the duty to seek and find perfect collective forms in their work. The school community, a unit of Soviet children's society, must first of all become the object of educational work. When educating an individual, we must think about educating the entire team. In practice, these two problems will be solved only jointly and only in one general way. At every moment of our influence on the individual, these influences must necessarily also be an influence on the collective. And vice versa, each of our touches on the collective will necessarily be the education of each individual included in the collective.
The collective, which should be the first goal of our education, must have very definite qualities that clearly follow from its socialist character...
A. The team unites people not only in a common goal and in common work, but also in the general organization of this work. The common goal here is not a random coincidence of private goals, as in a tram car or in a theater, but precisely the goal of the entire team. The relation between a general and a particular goal for us is not a relation of opposites, but only a relation between the general (and therefore mine) and the particular, which, while remaining only mine, will be summed up into the general in a special order.
Each action of an individual student, each of his success or failure should be regarded as a failure against the background of the common cause, as success in the common cause. Such pedagogical logic should literally permeate every school day, every movement of the team.
B. The collective is part of Soviet society, organically connected with all other collectives. He bears the first responsibility to society, he bears the first duty to the entire country, only through the collective does each member enter society. This is where the idea of ​​Soviet discipline comes from. In this case, every student will understand the interests of the team and the concepts of duty and honor. Only in such instrumentation is it possible to foster harmony of personal and common interests, to cultivate that sense of honor that in no way resembles the old ambition of an arrogant rapist.
B. Achieving the goals of the team, common work, duty and honor of the team cannot become a game of the random whims of individual people. A team is not a crowd. The collective is a social organism, therefore, it has management and coordination bodies authorized primarily to represent the interests of the collective and society.
The experience of collective life is not only the experience of being in the neighborhood with other people, it is a very complex experience of expedient collective movements, among which the most prominent place is occupied by the principles of command, discussion, subordination to the majority, subordination of comrade to comrade, responsibility and consistency.
Bright and broad prospects are opening up for teaching work in Soviet schools. The teacher is called upon to create this exemplary organization, preserve it, improve it, and pass it on to new teaching staff. Not paired moralizing, but tactful and wise leadership of the correct growth of the team - this is his calling.
D. The Soviet collective stands on the principled position of the world unity of working humanity. This is not just an everyday association of people; it is part of the battle front of humanity in the era of world revolution. All the previous properties of the collective will not resonate if the pathos of the historical struggle that we are experiencing does not live in its life. All other qualities of the team should be united and nurtured in this idea. The collective must always, literally at every step, have examples of our struggle; it must always feel ahead of itself the Communist Party, leading it to true happiness.
From these provisions about the collective flow all the details of personal development. We must graduate from our schools energetic and ideological members of socialist society, capable without hesitation, always, at every moment of their lives, of finding the correct criterion for personal action, capable at the same time of demanding correct behavior from others. Our pupil, no matter who he is, can never act in life as a bearer of some kind of personal perfection, only as a kind or honest person. He must always act, first of all, as a member of his team, as a member of society, responsible for the actions not only of himself, but also of his comrades.
Particularly important is the area of ​​discipline in which we, teachers, have sinned the most. Until now, we have a view of discipline as one of the many attributes of a person and sometimes only as a method, sometimes only as a form. In a socialist society, free from any otherworldly foundations of morality, discipline becomes not a technical, but a necessarily moral category. Therefore, the discipline of inhibition is absolutely alien to our team, which now, due to some misunderstanding, has become the alpha and omega of the educational wisdom of many teachers. Discipline expressed only in prohibitive norms is the worst type of moral education in the Soviet school. (...)
Makarenko A.S. About education. - M., 1988. - pp. 28-30

What does it mean to raise a child?

What does it mean to raise a child? You can raise for happiness, you can raise for struggle. You can educate for individual happiness, you can educate for individual struggle. And you can educate for common happiness and for common struggle. These are all very important and very practical questions.
We have many old ideas about human values, about his dignity.
So, the purpose of education seems to be clear. What should a Soviet citizen be like? A few very clear signs: active, active, prudent, knowledgeable collectivist. But not only the ability to act, we also need a greater ability to inhibit, also different from the old ability. A very important ability to navigate, a broad view and a wide sense.
Ways of education. Of course, in the foreground is the total sum of correct ideas, the sum of correct, Marxist-illuminated knowledge. Knowledge comes from study and even more from the wonderful Soviet experience, from newspapers, books, from our every day. Many people think that this is enough. That's really a lot. Our life makes the most powerful impression on a person and truly educates him. (...)
But we cannot dwell on these achievements; we must directly say that without special care for people, pedagogical care, we lose a lot. True, good results are obtained, but we are satisfied with them only because we do not know how grandiose they can be,
I am a supporter of a special educational discipline, which has not yet been created, but which will be created here, in the Soviet Union. The basic principles of this education: 1) respect and demand; 2) sincerity and openness; 3) integrity; 4) care and attention, knowledge; 5) exercise; 6) hardening; 7) labor; 8) team; 9) family: first childhood, amount of love and degree of severity; 10) children's joy, play; 11) punishment and reward.
Right there. -WITH. 35-36.

Communist education and behavior

Our task is not only to cultivate in ourselves a correct, reasonable attitude towards issues of behavior, but also to cultivate the right habits, i.e. such habits when we would do the right thing not because we sat down and thought, but because we cannot do otherwise, because we are so used to it. And cultivating these habits is a much more difficult matter than cultivating consciousness. In my work of character education it was very easy to organize the mind. Still, a person understands, a person is aware of how to act. When he has to act, he acts differently, especially in those cases when the act is performed in secret, without witnesses. This is a very precise test of consciousness - an act in secret. How does a person behave when no one sees him, hears him and no one checks him? And then I had to work a lot on this issue. I realized that it is easy to teach a person to do the right thing in my presence, in the presence of the team, but to teach him to do the right thing when no one hears, sees or knows anything is very difficult. (...)
It is a common belief that a person must have both advantages and disadvantages. Even young people and schoolchildren think so. How “comfortable” it becomes to live with the consciousness: I have advantages, but I also have disadvantages. And then there is self-consolation: if there were no shortcomings, then it would be a scheme, not a person. The flaws should be there for the sake of beauty.
But why on earth should there be disadvantages? And I say: there should be no shortcomings. And if you have twenty advantages and ten shortcomings, we should pester you, but why do you have ten shortcomings? Down with five. When five remain, down with two, let three remain. In general, you need to demand, demand, demand from a person! And every person must demand from himself. I would never have come to this conviction if I had not had to work in this area. Why should a person have flaws? I must improve the team until there are no shortcomings. And what do you think? Do you get a diagram? No! It turns out to be a wonderful person, full of originality, with a vibrant personal life. Is this a person if he good worker, if he is a wonderful engineer, but likes to lie, shouldn’t he always tell the truth? What is this: a wonderful engineer, but Khlestakov?
And now we ask: what shortcomings can be left?
Now, if you want to carry out communist education in an active way, and if they argue in front of you that everyone must have shortcomings, you will ask: what are they? You will see what they answer you. What shortcomings may remain? It is impossible to take it secretly, it is impossible to misbehave, it is impossible to steal, it is impossible to act dishonestly. And what kind are possible? Can I leave my hot temper? Why on earth? Among us there will be a person with a quick temper, and he may curse, and then say: sorry, I have a quick temper. It is precisely in Soviet ethics that there must be a serious system of demands on a person, and only this can lead to the fact that we will develop, first of all, demands on ourselves. This is the most difficult thing - the demand on yourself. My “specialty” is correct behavior, I should have, in any case, behaved correctly in the first place. It’s easy to demand from others, but from yourself you run into some kind of rubber, you still want to excuse yourself with something. And I am very grateful to my community team named after. Gorky and them. Dzerzhinsky for the fact that in response to my demands on them, they made demands on me.
...We must demand, but make only feasible demands... Any excess can only cripple...
Our ethics should be a prosaic, business-like ethics of today’s and tomorrow’s ordinary behavior...
Those who believe that people can have shortcomings sometimes think: if a person is used to being late, then this is a small shortcoming.
I can be proud - in my commune there was always this order: no matter what meeting took place, you had to wait three minutes after the signal. After this, the meeting was considered open. If one of the communards was five minutes late for a meeting, the chairman said: you were five minutes late - get five outfits. This means five hours of extra work.
Accuracy. This is labor productivity, this is productivity, this is things, this is wealth, this is respect for oneself and for comrades. We in the commune could not live without precision. Tenth graders in schools say: there is not enough time. And the commune had a full ten-year plan and a factory that took up four hours a day. But we had enough time. And they walked, and relaxed, and had fun, and danced. And we have reached a real ethical pathos: being late is the biggest punishment. Let's say a communard told me: I'm going on vacation until eight o'clock. He set his own time. But if he came at five past nine, I put him under arrest. Who pulled your tongue? You could have said at nine o’clock, but you said at eight, so come like that.
Accuracy is a big deal. And when I see the communard has lived to the point of precision, I believe that good man it will come out of it. Respect for the collective is precisely demonstrated, without which there can be no communist ethics. (...)
Any act that is not designed for the interests of the collective is a suicidal act, it is harmful to society, and therefore to me. And therefore, in our communist ethics there must always be reason and common sense. Whatever question you take, even the question of love, it is resolved by what determines all our behavior. Our behavior should be the behavior of knowledgeable people, capable people, life technicians who are aware of every action. We cannot have ethics without knowledge and skill, without organization. This also applies to love. We must be able to love, know how to love. We must approach love as conscious, sensible, responsible people, and then there can be no love dramas. Love also needs to be organized, like all things. Love loves organization as much as any work, and until now we thought that love was a matter of talent. Nothing like this.
The ethical problem “I fell in love - fell out of love”, “deceived - abandoned” or the problem “I fell in love and will love for life” cannot be resolved without the use of the most careful orientation, accounting, verification and the obligatory ability to plan one’s future. And we must learn how to love. We are obliged to be conscious citizens in love, and therefore we must fight the old habit and view of love that love is an influx from above, such an element has come, and a person has only his “object” and nothing else. I fell in love, that's why I'm late for work, forget the keys to office cabinets at home, forget money for the tram. Love should enrich people with a sense of strength, and it does. I taught my communards to test themselves in love, to think about what will happen tomorrow. (...)
Ibid.- P.38-46.

Methodology for organizing the educational process
Teacher's work

The work of a teacher in groups should consist of the following: first of all, the teacher must know well the composition of his groups, must know the life and character traits of each pupil, his aspirations, doubts, weaknesses and virtues.
A good teacher must keep a diary of his work, in which he must record individual observations of his pupils, incidents characterizing this or that person, conversations with him, the pupil’s movement forward, and analyze the phenomena of crisis or turning point that occur in all children at different ages. This diary should under no circumstances have the character of an official journal.
It should be viewed only by the head of the pedagogical department and only if he wants to get a more complete picture of a particular student. Keeping such a diary can characterize the quality of the teacher’s work and serve as a known measure of his value as a worker, but one should not formally demand that he keep such a diary, because in this case the most dangerous thing is to turn such a diary into an official report.
It is recommended to keep a diary in a large notebook, without dividing it into parts for individual students, since in this diary the teacher must characterize and analyze not only individuals, but also entire groups and phenomena in units. This diary should not be used to register misdeeds and violations. Such registration should be carried out in another place - with the head of the pedagogical unit or in the council of commanders. The teacher should be interested in intimate, officially elusive phenomena.
In order for a teacher to work in this particular direction, he should not resemble a supervisor. The teacher should not have the right to punish or reward in formal terms; he should not give orders on his own behalf, except in the most extreme cases, and especially should not command. The leadership of the detachment, having the right to command and demand, is the detachment commander. Under no circumstances should the teacher replace him. Likewise, he should not replace the senior management of the institution.
If possible, the teacher should avoid complaints about students to senior management and report to the official about the state of the units assigned to him. And this responsibility to officially report belongs to the commander.
Only when the teacher is freed from formal, supervisory functions can he earn the full trust of the units and all students and conduct his work properly.
What should a teacher know about each of his students?
What is the state of the pupil’s health, does he complain about anything, does he see a doctor, is he satisfied with the doctor’s help? Is the doctor attentive enough to this student?
How does the student feel about his institution, does he value it, is he ready to actively participate in improving the life of the institution, or does he treat it indifferently, as an episode of his life, and perhaps even hostile? In the latter case, it is necessary to find out the reasons for this unhealthy attitude: do they lie in the institution itself and its procedures, or do the reasons lie in the pupil’s desire to study and live in another place, where exactly, how to live, what to do?
Does the student have a sufficiently accurate idea of ​​his position, his strengths, and does he understand the need for a career path? Isn’t he dominated by primitive perspectives of today’s satiety, today’s pleasure, and is this entertainment due to ingrained habits or due to weakness of development?
How does the pupil relate to his comrades and which ones is he more drawn to, whom does he not like, with whom is he friends, with whom is he at enmity? How strong are his inclinations towards secret antisocial groups, towards fantastic and adventurous plans? How does he relate to the detachment and commander? What inclinations does he have to dominate and on what does he seek to substantiate this dominance: on intelligence, on development, on life experience, on personality strength, on physical strength, on an aesthetic pose? Is this desire for dominance parallel to the interests of the institution or directed against the institution, against the unit or against individuals?
How does the student feel about improving his qualifications, school work, cultural work, improving the general culture of behavior, the culture of attitude towards people.
Does he understand the need for his own improvement and the benefits of it, or is he more attracted to the process of study and cultural work, the pleasures that this work gives him?
What does the pupil read, does he read newspapers, books, does he get them himself from the library or reads random books, is he interested in certain topics or reads indiscriminately?
What talents and abilities does the pupil discover, which ones would need to be developed?
Where does the student work in production, is the work feasible for him, does he like it? Does the pupil show weakness of will in his attitude towards work, is he capricious, does he strive for another job, how reasonable is this desire, what are the obstacles in such an aspiration, how does the pupil overcome these obstacles, is he ready to fight them for a long time, enough does he have persistence?
How does the student relate to his workplace, to the work processes, to the tool, to the technological process, does he show interest in the technical development of his work, in improving it, increasing productivity, in the Stakhanov movement? What inconveniences and shortcomings hinder the student’s work, what measures does he take to eliminate them, does he speak out in the unit, and in what forms does the student do all this?
Is the student familiar with the general production situation of the entire detachment, the entire workshop? Does he know the control figures for the detachment and the workshop, is he interested in the success of his production, institution, and its movement forward? How much does he care about the successes and failures of production, how much does he live by them?
The financial situation at home - in the family and the student’s earnings at work, how much money does he receive in his hands? How does he spend it, does he value it, and does he strive to save it? Does the family and which particular family members, comrades, help? Does he tend to dress better in what clothes he buys?
Are cultural skills instilled in the pupil, does he understand their necessity, does he strive to improve his speech, how does he treat the weak, women, children and the elderly?
The teacher should know all this data about the pupil and many others that arise in the process of studying the pupil, and a good teacher will definitely write it down. But this data should never be collected in such a way that it is simply collecting. The knowledge of the pupil should come to the teacher not in the process of indifferently studying him, but only in the process of working together with him and the most active assistance to him. The teacher should look at the pupil not as an object of study, but as an object of education.
From this basic position flow both the forms of communication between the teacher and the student, and the forms of its study. The teacher should not simply ask the student about various circumstances of his life, about his aspirations and desires in order to write down and summarize all this.
At the first meeting of the teacher and the pupil, the former must set a practical goal: to make this boy or girl a real cultured Soviet person, a worker, a worker who can be released from the institution as a useful citizen, qualified, literate, politically educated and educated, healthy physically and mentally. The teacher should never forget this goal of his work, literally not forget it for a single minute. And only in practical movement towards this goal should the teacher have contact with his pupil.
Every learning something new about a pupil from a teacher should immediately be translated into practical action, practical advice, a desire to help the pupil.
Such help, such movement towards a permanent goal can only in rare cases be provided in a simple conversation with a student, in a simple explanation of various truths to him.
Conversations to inexperienced educators seem to be the highest expression of pedagogical technique. In fact, they represent the most artisanal pedagogical techniques.
The educator should always be well aware of the following: although all pupils understand that they are taught and raised in a children's institution, they really do not like to be subjected to special pedagogical procedures and, even more so, do not like it when they are endlessly talked to about the benefits of education, moralizing every meaning.
Therefore, the essence of the teacher’s pedagogical position should be hidden from students and not come to the fore. A teacher who endlessly pursues pupils with apparently special conversations bores the pupils and almost always causes some resistance.
Soviet pedagogy is not a pedagogy of direct, but of parallel pedagogical action. Pupil of our child care facility is first of all a member of the work collective, and then a student, this is how he should present himself to himself. Therefore, officially he is not called a student, but a candidate or a member of the team. In his eyes, the educator must also act, first of all, as a member of the same work collective, and then as an educator, as a specialist teacher, and therefore the contact between the educator and the student should occur not so much in a special pedagogical plane, but in the plane of the labor production collective, against the backdrop of not only the interests of the narrow pedagogical process, but the struggle for a better institution, for its wealth, prosperity and good reputation, for cultural life, behind happy life collective, for the joy and intelligence of this life.
Before a group of pupils, the teacher must act as a comrade in arms, fighting with them and ahead of them for all the ideals of a first-class Soviet children's institution. This is where his method comes from. pedagogical work. The teacher must remember this at every step.
Therefore, for example, if a teacher has set himself the goal of breaking up or eradicating any harmful group or company in a detachment, class or institution, he should do this in the form of not a direct appeal to this group, but a parallel operation in the detachment, class itself, talking about a breakthrough in the detachment, about the passivity of some comrades, about the harmful influence of the group on the detachment, about the lag of the detachment. He must mobilize the attention of the entire detachment on this grouping. A conversation with the students themselves should take the form of a dispute and persuasion, not on a direct issue (upbringing), but on the issue of the life of the institution, its work.
An educator, wanting to find out the situation of a pupil at school or at work, has at his disposal the only method: he visits school, at work, speaks at all production meetings, he speaks and actively acts among the teaching staff, production administration, and fights together with the detachment for excellent academic performance, for good tools, for the presentation of materials, for the best process of instructing and monitoring and improving the quality of training. He acts alongside the detachment as an interested member in all cases when the detachment defends the correct social position.
In all cases, when a detachment strays onto the wrong path, he fights within the detachment itself, relying on its best members and at the same time defending not his own pedagogical positions, but, first of all, the interests of the students and the entire institution.
The “processing” of individual pupils should only in rare cases take the form of a direct appeal to a given pupil. First of all, the educator must mobilize for such “processing” a certain group of senior and influential comrades from his own detachment or even from someone else’s. If this does not help, he must speak with the pupil himself, but even this conversation he must make into a completely simple and natural conversation about affairs in the institution or in the detachment and only gradually and naturally move on to the topic of the pupil himself. It is always necessary that the student himself wants to talk about himself. In some cases, it is possible to directly address the student on the topic of his behavior, but such an appeal must be made logically based on the general themes of the team.
An issue of extreme importance is the attitude of children towards education. This is an area that the teacher should pay the most serious attention to. The systematic acquisition of thorough knowledge at school and its timely completion determine a person’s path in life, but this is also necessary for the healthy and correct formation of character, i.e., this largely determines the fate of a person. Therefore, academic performance and grades (and this does not always completely coincide and should also be the subject of special attention of the teacher), the student’s actual knowledge in subjects that specifically interest him should be well and in detail known to the teacher in their dynamics, development and trends. Failure at school and bad grades lower the mood and vitality of the student, although outwardly this may take the form of bravado, feigned indifference, isolation or ridicule. Failures at school are the usual beginning of systematic lies among children in its most diverse forms. This posture of the pupil contrasts him with the healthy children and youth group, and therefore it is always more or less dangerous.
An excellent student may have another tendency outside the collective position: arrogance, narcissism, selfishness, hidden behind the most virtuous face and pose. The average student has a monotony and grayish tone of life, which children find difficult to tolerate and therefore begin to look for an optimistic perspective in other areas.
School relationships form the main background of children’s lives school age, this is something the teacher must always remember, but even here, complete success and well-being are achieved by the clarity of the pupil’s personal and social perspective paths, the strength of social and collective ties, and lectures and persuasion help the least. Real help is needed for those lagging behind to improve their civic well-being.
The future of the student should be very special in the teacher’s mind. The teacher must know what the student wants and hopes to be, what efforts he makes for this, how realistic his aspirations are, and whether he is capable of them. Choosing a path in life for a young man is not so easy. Here, the biggest obstacles are often lack of faith in one’s own strengths or, on the contrary, dangerous imitation of stronger comrades.
Students usually have difficulty understanding this complex task, especially since we have not yet learned how to thoroughly help our graduates.
Helping a student choose his own path is a very responsible matter, not only because it is important for the student’s future life, but also because it greatly affects the tone of his activities and life in the institution.
The teacher must also carry out this work among the entire detachment, arousing the pupils’ interest in various areas of life, citing as examples the advanced workers and collective farmers who have become famous throughout the country. It is important to arouse in the children the desire to be ahead in every place, in every activity. It is important to prove that energy, enthusiasm, intelligence, and the desire for high quality work make each specialty enviable.
The forms of work of a teacher in a detachment can be very diverse:
participation in the work of a detachment, class;
participation in all production meetings;
participation in all meetings and general meetings;
simply being present in a group, having a conversation, playing chess or dominoes, sports game;
walking together; participation in clubs together with members of the squad;
participation in the publication of the detachment newspaper;
reading evenings; guidance in reading and selection of books;
participation in general cleaning in the detachment;
walks and conversations with individual groups and individual pupils;
presence in class sessions;
assistance to students in preparing lessons, in the execution of drawings and drawings;
presence in all self-government bodies;
a meeting with the detachment or with all the detachments of your group;
direct work in organizing exhibitions and preparing holidays;
active participation in solving all issues of material life;
trips and hikes to connect with different organizations, just to visit workers and collective farms.
Swimming, skiing, skating - direct work on the organization and establishment of all these entertainments.
The work of a teacher in groups requires a lot of strength, and it can fill everything work time teacher
For such team work there is no need to establish any time regulations. This job cannot be on duty. The teacher must be with the detachment, especially at a time when the detachment is not busy at work or at school, but even at this time, every hour the teacher spends with the detachment is already work.
The teacher should avoid only one form: simply being in front of the children without anything to do and without any interest in them. Monitoring of a teacher’s squad work should be done not by the number of hours worked, but by the results of the work, by the place occupied by his squad in inter-squad competition, by the general tone, by production successes, by the nature of the growth of individual pupils and the entire squad, and, finally, in relation to him of the detachment itself.
It is absolutely clear that a teacher who does not have authority cannot be an educator.
In his team work, as already said, the teacher should not be an administrator. If negative phenomena are observed in the detachment, the teacher must talk about them with the head of the pedagogical unit, but after such a conversation the management of the institution can take organizational measures only after a statement about trouble in the detachment is received from the commander or members of the detachment.
In order to put such measures on the agenda, the teacher must openly demand that the detachment meeting or the detachment leadership report a message to the leadership of the institution. In such a requirement, the teacher must always be persistent, must not play along with the students and hide his own point of view from them. In the eyes of the students, the teacher should not be two-faced, and his actions in the detachment should not seem to be in conflict with the actions of the administration of the institution. The position of the teacher is completely different in his other work - in working with the entire team. In this case, he no longer acts as a senior comrade in a group of detachments, but as an authorized representative of the entire team...

II

At the stage of the revolutionary restructuring of society, we vitally need A. S. Makarenko’s holistic pedagogical system, not declared, not superficially interpreted, but deeply perceived by the mind and heart of everyone involved in the matter of education. For the great teacher half a century ago developed the concept of educating tomorrow.

A. S. Makarenko’s theory directly grew out of practice: for 16 years, he talentedly and fearlessly carried out an unprecedented pedagogical experiment. Based on the traditions of progressive domestic and foreign pedagogy, on the ideas of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, Makarenko clearly, polemically pointedly stated the decisive influence of the social environment, working and leisure conditions, and everyday life on the formation of an individual’s worldview and morality. Everything educates: circumstances, things, actions, actions of people, sometimes complete strangers. The educational process itself (object - subject of education) is only one of the factors that shapes a person. It is not only or not so much the educator himself who educates, but the environment, which is organized in the most advantageous way around a central point - the process of managing.

Through his activities, A. S. Makarenko defended the idea of ​​​​the dynamic unity of life and education. While educating the younger generation, he fought primarily for the harmonious development of the child’s personality. Children, he believed, are not “preparing for work and life,” as other scientist-teachers claimed, but live and work, think and worry. He said: “No, children are living lives” - and taught to treat them as comrades and citizens, to see and respect their rights and responsibilities, including the right to joy and the duty of responsibility. Makarenko made the most important innovative conclusion: the pedagogically appropriate organization of the entire life and activity of children in a team is a general and unified method that ensures the effectiveness of educating the team and the socialist individual.

A. S. Makarenko deeply realized and felt his calling: “My world is the world of organized human creation. The world of precise Leninist logic, but there is so much of our own here that this is my world” (July 1927).

The discoveries of A. S. Makarenko were born on the basis of a comprehensive development of Lenin’s theoretical heritage, an understanding of Lenin’s plans for building a socialist society. On the thoughts of V.I. Lenin about the need to “provide complete freedom of creativity to the masses” ( Lenin V.I. Complete. collection op. T. 35. P. 27.) was based on the idea of ​​democratization of public education (“it is necessary to give the children’s collective the opportunity to create the forms of their life and way of life”), tirelessly and consistently developed by Makarenko.

Charter (constitution) of the school or orphanage, according to Makarenko, are created by the team itself and are designed to be a kind of mirror that reflects all the living paths of a given institution. Of course, any charter is approved by the highest authorities, but this should not interfere with living work and should not ruin the initiative. Only such a truly democratic system for developing, approving and implementing the charter “will make our education truly socialist and completely free from unnecessary bureaucracy.” And in this case, the school and orphanage will benefit from the creative process, and the governing bodies will benefit from strengthening the pedagogical focus of their activities.

What are the goals of education? The young Soviet pedagogical science gave an answer to this question only in the most general form. At the same time, extremes were often allowed when, touching on this issue, other theorists reached transcendental heights, setting unrealistic and therefore useless tasks - “romantic”, as A. S. Makarenko called them. The point was to connect high goals with a specific life. Discipline, efficiency, honesty, political awareness - this is the minimum, the achievement of which opened up wide opportunities for the implementation of the goals set by society.

Even at the beginning of his work in the colony named after. M. Gorky, the innovative teacher polemicized with those scientists who tried to decompose the student’s personality “into many component parts, name and number all these parts, build them into a certain system and... do not know what to do next.” This is a formal, superficial attitude towards both science and education. The essence is true scientific approach in another: education had to be organized in such a way that a person’s personality was improved as a whole.

The moral maximalism of A. S. Makarenko did not allow him to divide people’s shortcomings into categorically unacceptable and, on the contrary, tolerable. It is impossible to bully, it is impossible to steal, it is impossible to deceive... But is it possible to be rude due to a hot temper? It is in Soviet ethics, Makarenko believed, “there must be a serious system of demands on a person, and only this can lead to the fact that we will develop, first of all, demands on ourselves. This is the most difficult thing - the demand on yourself.” But this is precisely where the process of improvement and self-improvement of a person begins, the restructuring of oneself.

Demandingness as a moral and pedagogical principle is internally inherent in Makarenko’s educational concept, and it is no coincidence that, speaking about the essence of his experience, he gave a brief, succinct, catchphrase formula: as much demand for a person as possible and as much respect for him as possible.

In Makarenkov’s principle of mutual respect (not only for teachers and pupils, but also for children for each other) and exactingness, respect plays a major role. Both in his writings and in his practical work, A. S. Makarenko emphasized more than once: it is not the fault, but the misfortune of a “difficult” child that he is a thief, a hooligan, a rowdy, that he is poorly brought up. Reason - social conditions, the adults around him, the environment. “I witnessed,” wrote Anton Semenovich, “numerous cases when the most difficult boys, who were expelled from all schools, considered disorganizers, placed in the conditions of a normal pedagogical society (read - educational collective - B. X.), literally the next day became good, very talented, able to move forward quickly.”

Faith in the best in man - leading start pedagogy A. S. Makarenko. He encouraged his fellow educators to do this: “When you see a pupil in front of you - a boy or a girl - you must be able to design more than what appears to the eye. And that's always right. Just as a good hunter, when giving a shot at a moving target, takes far ahead, so a teacher in his educational work must take far ahead, demand a lot from a person and respect him terribly, although according to external signs, perhaps this person does not deserve respect.” .

Without such an approach to children, true humanism, respect for human dignity, his creative capabilities and prospects is impossible. In the cruel times of “working out”, labels, moral and physical destruction of people (often with the consent of public opinion), Makarenko’s voice sounded with obvious dissonance: “Pressing on a “child” from all sides is worse than storming” ( From the archive of A. S. Makarenko.).

The central place in the theory of A. S. Makarenko is occupied by the doctrine of the educational team, which is, firstly, an instrument for the formation of an active creative personality with a highly developed sense of duty, honor, dignity and, secondly, a means of protecting the interests of each individual, transforming external demands to the personality into the internal drivers of its development. Makarenko was the first to scientifically develop (in his favorite expression, “brought his system to the machine”) the methodology of communist education in a children’s team: in detail, “technologically” he examined such issues as relationships in the team, pedagogical requirements, discipline, reward and punishment, moral and labor education, self-government, individual approach to the children. In his view, the basis of self-government and the entire internal organization of the educational team was the production and professional orientation of the institution.

This entire system was based on a deep understanding of the Marxist-Leninist conclusion that the most favorable conditions for the education and unity of the collective are provided by social production. Here is how A. S. Makarenko himself wrote about this, revealing the essence of the work of the teaching staff he headed: “By giving the communards high qualifications associated with secondary education, we at the same time impart to him many and varied qualities of the owner and organizer of a... independent solution of production, economic and social issues for the communards is, first of all, a place for applying their social energy, but this is not the energy of people who renounce their personal lives, this is not the sacrifice of ascetics, this is the reasonable social activity of people who understand that public interest is interest private".

The individual and the collective, the collective and the individual... The development of their relationships, conflicts and their resolution, the interweaving of interests and interdependencies are at the very center of the new pedagogical system. “I spent all my 16 years of Soviet teaching work,” recalled A. S. Makarenko, “and spent most of my energy on resolving the issue of team structure.” They told him: how can a commune educate everyone if you can’t cope with one person - you throw him out onto the street. And in response, he called for abandoning individual logic - after all, it is not one person who is being educated, but the entire team. “What do you think,” he asked, “doesn’t raising your hand to exclude a comrade mean taking on very big obligations, great responsibility?” And he immediately explained that by applying this measure of punishment, the collective thereby first of all expresses collective anger, collective demands, collective experience.

To understand the views of A. S. Makarenko, it is important to understand the dialectical relationship between responsibility and personal security in a team. He emphasized: “By protecting the collective at all points of contact with the egoism of the individual, the collective thereby protects each individual and provides for her the most favorable conditions for development. The demands of the collective are educational mainly in relation to those who participate in the demand. Here the individual appears in a new position of education - she is not an object of educational influence, but its bearer - a subject, but she becomes a subject only by expressing the interests of the entire team.”

Makarenko advocated the broad and complete democratization of education and training, for the creation of a normal psychological climate in the children's environment, which gives everyone a guarantee of security, a guarantee of free and creative development. These ideas were extremely relevant in the 20s and 30s. How many large and small tragedies played out then in classrooms, school corridors, and on the street! This was the case wherever a rude person, an egoist, a hooligan, or a rapist was not opposed by the collective - its opinion, will, action.

In the commune named after F.E. Dzerzhinsky was not like that. Let us recall, for example, the case when one Communard hit his younger comrade on the head with a tin can. This happened during a summer trip, on a ship, in front of Yalta. It would seem - what an unprecedented thing! But a general meeting was immediately convened, and, despite the objections of A. S. Makarenko (“Well, he hit, well, he’s guilty, but you can’t throw a person out of the commune”), despite his persuasion to forgive the offender, the communards were adamant. They understood well that the honor of the team, one of its main moral principles, was affected here. And the culprit, by decision of the general meeting, was thrown off the ship in Yalta. He left... It is unknown what his fate was. But there is no doubt that violence and injustice were publicly punished, which indicated that the collective guarantees the protection of his interests to every person.

Self-government, without which Makarenko could not imagine the development of children's management, did not exist on paper in the commune. No one could cancel the decisions of the general meeting. It was this that determined the life, work, everyday life, leisure, recreation of the entire team, and sometimes the fate of one person. “I made a decision - I answer” - this experience of responsibility is brought up in a team with the greatest difficulty, but when it is brought up, it works wonders, A. S. Makarenko proved with his experience. Where there is a collective, the relationship of comrade to comrade is not a matter of friendship, love or neighborhood, but a matter of responsible dependence.

In Makarenkov’s collectives, democracy was not declared, but guaranteed and implemented daily, hourly. In fact, the pupils had the right to freely and openly discuss and make decisions on all issues of their lives at general meetings, the voices of the pupil and the teacher were equal, everyone could be elected as a commander, etc. “I have never,” asserted Anton Semenovich, “ did not allow himself to deprive the right of a member of the collective and the voice of a single communard, regardless of his age or development. The general meeting of the members of the commune was truly a real, ruling body.”

Once, in a letter to A. M. Gorky (dated July 8, 1925), Makarenko noted that it was possible to achieve strong discipline, “not associated with oppression,” and that, in his opinion, “completely new forms of labor organization, which may also be useful for adults.” And he, as our days show, was absolutely right.

The system of self-government in the commune was built not according to the type of democratic rule of the people, as was often proposed in the scientific literature of the 20s, but on the basis of democratic centralism - with the widespread development of the method of powers and instructions. This meant that throughout the day, month, and year, each communard was repeatedly in the role of a leader, that is, an exponent of the will of the collective, and in the role of a subordinate. Thus, pedagogical process brought children out of the passive state of “objects of upbringing” and turned them into “subjects of upbringing,” and Anton Semenovich called this phenomenon an extremely happy conjuncture of upbringing, since a person who is intelligently involved in influencing others is much easier to educate himself. Each child was included in a system of real responsibility - both in the role of a commander and in the role of a private. Where there is no such system, the innovative teacher believed, weak-willed people who are not adapted to life often grow up.

The surviving minutes of meetings of the council of commanders testify to the real power of this body and the high public and social significance of its decisions. Here, for example, is one of them (October 2, 1930):

“Listen: statement of comrade. Mogilin and Zvyagin are asking for their prices to be increased, and then they promise to increase production standards.

Resolved: vol. Mogilin and Zvyagin should be blackballed for their greediness in production. They instructed Doroshenko to check the foundry every day..." ( From the archive of A. S. Makarenko.)

In the practice of the commune named after. F. E. Dzerzhinsky successfully implemented many provisions of socialist democracy. Take, for example, the analysis of the collective, which was carried out not by the head of the commune, but by the council of commanders - constantly and publicly. All communards were divided into groups: the active active - those who are clearly leading the commune with feeling, passion, conviction, and demands, and the reserve active, which comes to the aid of the active immediately, in fact, these are tomorrow's commanders. With this approach, the election of leaders becomes natural, fair and understandable to everyone.

And another very important facet of the life of the educational team is the relationship between teachers and their students. A. S. Makarenko ensured that they were not authoritarian, but democratic, based on comradely communication, friendship in the process joint activities- in the field, at the machine, in the classroom. In the eyes of the student, the teacher is first of all a member of the team, and then already a senior comrade, a mentor. At the same time, in the commune, situations that were paradoxical for authoritarian thinking often developed: the teenager on duty at the commune gave orders, but the teacher could not order, his weapon was pedagogical skill.

A. S. Makarenko resolutely fought - this needs to be said especially - with vulgar ideas about collective education as leveling and standardizing personality. Already in one of his early works (1924-1925), Anton Semenovich ridicules those who are afraid of “human diversity” - formal bureaucratic guardians of the collective. He writes: “...if we take the path of collective education, we decide to make sure that all individuality remains with horns and legs. I’m surprised how we are still not discussing the issue of banning various trebles, tenors, and basses. Think about such individualistic diversity. And the noses, and the hair color, and the expression of the eyes! Lord, real bourgeois chaos.”

Makarenko spoke out against the template and formalism both on the pages of the press and in practical work. He constantly emphasized that the same pedagogical tool, when applied to different students, gives different results (“I have not had two cases that were completely similar”). Here he takes the floor at the council of commanders (February 22, 1933), where the issue is considered that the communards Strelyany and Krymsky do not normally attend the workers' school. The first one dreams of studying at a music institute, and Anton Semenovich believes that he needs help preparing for admission and, perhaps, freeing him from some non-core subjects for a future musician at the workers' faculty. But Krymsky is a different matter: he has a bad influence on Strelyany, taught him to drink vodka, and is now encouraging him to leave the commune... Specific, individual situations cause specific, individual educational decisions and actions - Makarenko always followed this rule.

Another direction of A. S. Makarenko’s innovative pedagogical activity is the practical implementation of the Marxist-Leninist position on the advisability of early inclusion of children in productive labor, developed jointly with a number of outstanding Soviet teachers - N. K. Krupskaya, A. V. Lunacharsky, S. T. Shatsky and others - the methodological and methodological foundations of this matter. Participation in productive labor immediately changed social status children, turning them into “adult” citizens with all the ensuing rights and responsibilities.

Now we can only bitterly regret that scientific and experimental work in terms of combining education with productive work was suspended for many years and has not yet received the proper scope. This, however, does not prevent some authors, with full understanding and agreement, from quoting in scientific works Marx’s well-known thought that “under a reasonable social system every child from the age of 9 must become a productive worker in the same way as every able-bodied adult..." ( Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 16. P. 197.).

It goes without saying that in organizing children's productive labor, A. S. Makarenko studied and creatively used the achievements of other teachers, in particular the idea of ​​I. G. Pestalozzi that the combination of learning is difficult to meet the psychology of children, their natural desire for activity, and of course, the brilliantly carried out experience of organizing a pedagogical experimental station by S. T. Shatsky. Productive work must be organized in a certain way - as part of the educational process; Makarenko fully shared this idea of ​​his predecessors. However, he advanced incomparably further than teachers of all times in its practical implementation. He was able to prove, using the example of hundreds of his students, that a young person’s self-awareness, the development of his worldview and morality receive a huge creative impulse through participation in productive work. As a result, the creative and transformative forces hidden in a child or teenager gain access to life, and this accelerates the process of his formation - human, civil, professional.

Supporters of a predominantly verbal, book-based education arrogantly greeted “corny pedagogy” - this is how they dubbed the productive work of students. They managed, with the help of jingoistic communist phraseology and deft bureaucratic and administrative maneuvers, to destroy the living shoots of communist labor nurtured by the innovative teacher. The very destruction of the excellent educational staff of the colony named after. M. Gorky began precisely with the fact that the children were addressed with an appeal: “Stop being farm laborers - take up your studies...”

Both in his artistic works and in oral speeches, A. S. Makarenko did not tire of explaining what seemed to him a simple idea that productive labor is the strongest pedagogical tool in a collective economy, because in this work at every moment there is an economic care. “...In labor effort,” he said, addressing his contemporaries, “not only is one educated work training person, but also the preparation of a comrade, that is, he is brought up right attitude to other people - this will already be moral preparation. A person who tries to evade work at every step, who calmly watches how others work and enjoys the fruits of their labors, such a person is the most immoral person in Soviet society.”

In an effort to instill in a child a sense of social justice, the innovative teacher understood perfectly well that it would not suddenly fall from the sky, this feeling is mastered from early childhood. The strong offended the weak, one caused trouble - the other was punished, he answered perfectly - the mark was bad (the teacher disliked him for his independence, his point of view) - everything is deposited in the child’s soul.

That is why the Dzerzhin residents worked in a “commune” (in modern terms - a brigade contract), and each of them counted on an equal share of earnings with their comrade. Of course, there were cases when the amounts turned out to be different due to poor accounting, and sometimes orders were simply not issued. The adults nodded at the Communards: they say it’s their own fault, they forget about their outfits. In such cases, Makarenko always defended the interests of children and taught them to defend justice. He said: their fault is not that they lose outfits, but that they do not know how to persistently demand these outfits, that they start work without outfits. And he gave both teachers and students such specific life lessons, production lessons that helped them gain self-esteem and the ability to defend a just cause.

Teacher and student, parents and children - their good relationships are formed in joint creative work with mutual respect for the individuality and dignity of each - this is the cornerstone of Makarenko’s pedagogical view. He once debunked a bad teacher who “climbs into the arm of a boy working in the garden with his rantings about some stamens and pistils.” Could he imagine that there would be a worse disaster, that the time would come when neither the student nor the teacher would be able to work (in the garden, at the machine, on the farm), being entirely occupied only with the accumulation of book knowledge?

A. S. Makarenko was deeply convinced that the idea of ​​“carefree childhood” was alien to socialist society and could cause enormous harm to the future. Life has confirmed the correctness of his coined formula: the only form of a joyful childhood is a feasible workload. Anton Semenovich saw great meaning in such involvement of older generations in the business: “Our children are happy only because they are the children of happy fathers, no other combination is possible.” And then he posed the question bluntly: “And if we are happy in our labor care, in our labor victories, in our growth and overcoming, then what right do we have to highlight for children the opposite principles of happiness: idleness, consumption, carelessness?”

Hundreds of street children passed through the hands and heart of the outstanding teacher; many of them are a result of gaps, or, as he said, marriage, in family upbringing. And long-term observations of the behavior of the children joining the colony and commune revealed one socio-psychological feature: in their previous life they had persistent legal emotions, even reflexes, when a boy or girl was sure that everyone was obliged to feed, clothe, etc., and they have no responsibilities towards society.

The general principles and methods of educational work that Makarenko put forward are fully applicable in school. Productive work, democratic, equal relations between teachers and students, pedagogical skill, constant creative search, experiment - these are, in his view, the integral features of school life. And at the same time, he believed that not a single section of school pedagogy was as poorly developed as the methodology of education.

The key point in refracting the ideas of A. S. Makarenko in relation to school is the recognition or, on the contrary, denial of the participation of schoolchildren in productive work. When Anton Semenovich was invited to write a textbook on pedagogy, he refused, because it was about a school without a school facility. What, according to Makarenko, are the negative aspects of the situation that developed at that time? There is no production at school, no collective work, but there are only separate, scattered efforts, i.e., the labor process, “with the goal of allegedly giving (my discharge - V.Kh.) labor education.” Sensitive to any manifestation of formalism, he immediately noticed the direction in which labor training at school was heading.

By the way, Makarenko has always been distinguished by his intransigence towards showing off. Once, for example, at a meeting of counselors, someone enthusiastically talked about how the pioneers had started a competition: who would compose the best album about Spain. He was indignant: “...who are you raising? In Spain there is tragedy, death, heroism, and you force scissors to cut out pictures of “victims of the Madrid bombing” and arrange a competition to see who can paste such a picture better. You are raising cold-blooded cynics who, through this heroic cause of the Spanish struggle, want to earn extra money for themselves in competition with another organization.

I remember how I had a question about helping the Chinese pioneer. I told my communards: if you want to help, give half of your earnings. They agreed".

In the formation of the younger generation, many troubles initially come from the family. A. S. Makarenko understood this well and therefore wrote the artistic and journalistic “Book for Parents” with the goal of “exciting” and developing their pedagogical and ethical thinking. Although its first edition was published in 1937 in a small circulation (10 thousand copies), the author received many approving reviews in which wishes were expressed and new topics and problems were put forward. Inspired by the reaction of readers, he decided to write a second volume, consisting of ten stories devoted to specific topics (friendship, love, discipline, etc.).

Turning to understanding the position of the family in Soviet society, A. S. Makarenko relied on the general methodological premises of his pedagogical concept: the family is the primary collective, where everyone is a full member, with their own functions and responsibilities. The child is not an “object of pampering” or parental “victims”, but, to the best of his ability, a participant in the general working life of the family. It is good that children in the family are constantly responsible for certain work, for its quality, and not just respond to one-time requests and instructions.

He saw the main “secret” of success in parents’ honest fulfillment of their civic duty to society. The personal example of parents, their behavior, actions, attitude towards work, towards people, towards events and things, their relationships with each other - all this influences children and shapes their personality.

Already in those years, Makarenko foresaw the danger of a drastic change in the family structure - the emergence of a large number of one-child families - and in connection with this he emphasized: raising an only son or daughter is much more difficult than raising several children. Even if the family is experiencing some financial difficulties, it cannot be limited to one child.

Both in the “Book for Parents” and in lectures on raising children given on the All-Union Radio in the second half of 1937, A. S. Makarenko reveals the features of education in preschool age, the formation of a culture of feelings, and the preparation of a future family man. He calls for the use of a wide variety of educational methods: training, persuasion, proof, encouragement or approval, hint (direct or indirect), punishment.

With many valuable advice that parents draw from the books of A. S. Makarenko, the most important ideological and spiritual problem acutely posed by the teacher will probably not go unnoticed: the deepest meaning of the educational work of the family team lies in the selection and cultivation of high, morally justified needs of the collectivist individual. “We have a need,” Makarenko wrote, directing the reader’s thoughts and feelings towards the ideal, “to have Native sister duty, responsibility, abilities, this is a manifestation of the interests not of the consumer of public goods, but of the leader of a socialist society, the creator of these goods.” And, as if foreseeing the possibility of a double morality: one - “for home”, “for family”, and the other - for the outside world, he called for a single, integral “communism” social behavior“, because “otherwise we will raise the most pitiful creature that is possible in the world - a limited patriot of our own apartment, a greedy and pathetic little animal of the family hole.”

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………. p.3

1. Life and work of A. S. Makarenko………………………… p.4

2. The most important principles of pedagogical theory and practice A. S. Makarenko…………………………………………………………. p.5

3. Education in the team and through the team……………………. p.6

4. About labor education…………………………………………... page 8

5. The importance of play in education……………………………………... p.9

6. About family education………………………………………….. p.10

Conclusion……………………………………………………………… page 12

Bibliography……………………………………………………. p.13

Introduction

PEDAGOGICAL ACTIVITY AND THEORY OF A. S. MAKARENKO

Anton Semenovich Makarenko (1888-1939) was a talented innovative teacher, one of the creators harmonious system communist education of the younger generation on the basis of Marxist-Leninist teachings. His name is widely known among different countries, his pedagogical experiment, which, according to A. M. Gorky, has global significance, is studied everywhere. Over the 16 years of his activity as the head of the colony named after M. Gorky and the commune named after F. E. Dzerzhinsky, A. S. Makarenko brought up more than 3000 young citizens of the Soviet country Numerous works of A. S. Makarenko, especially “Pedagogical Poem” and “Flags on the Towers”, have been translated into many languages. There are a large number of Makarenko’s followers among progressive teachers around the world.

1. Life and work of A. S. Makarenko

A. S. Makarenko was born on March 13, 1888 in Belopolye, Kharkov province, into the family of a railway workshop worker. In 1905, he graduated with honors from the Higher Primary School with one-year pedagogical courses. The turbulent events of the period of the first Russian revolution of 1905 greatly captured the capable and active young man, who early realized his pedagogical vocation and was passionate about the humane ideas of Russian classical literature. M. Gorky, who then controlled the minds of leading people in Russia, had a huge influence on the formation of Makarenko’s worldview. During these same years, A. S. Makarenko became acquainted with Marxist literature, for the perception of which he was prepared by the entire life around him.

But after graduating from college, A. S. Makarenko worked as a teacher of the Russian language, drawing and drawing in a two-class railway school in the village. Kryukovo, Poltava province. In his work, he sought to implement progressive pedagogical ideas: he established close ties with the parents of students, promoted the ideas of a humane attitude towards children, respect for their interests, and tried to introduce labor in school. Naturally, his sentiments and undertakings met with disapproval from the conservative school authorities, who achieved Makarenko’s transfer from Kryukov to a school in the provincial station Dolinskaya Yuzhnaya railway. From 1914 to 1917, Makarenko studied at the Poltava Teachers' Institute, from which he graduated with a gold medal. Then he headed the higher primary school in Kryukov, where he spent his childhood and youth and where museums named after him are now open.

A. S. Makarenko enthusiastically greeted the Great October Socialist Revolution. During the period of civil war and foreign intervention, a huge number of homeless teenagers accumulated in the southern Ukrainian cities, the Soviet authorities began to create special educational institutions for them, and A. S. Makarenko was involved in this difficult work. In 1920, he was tasked with organizing a colony for juvenile offenders.

Over the course of eight years of intense pedagogical work and bold innovative searches for methods of communist education, Makarenko won a complete victory, creating a wonderful educational institution that glorified Soviet pedagogy and established the effective and humane nature of the Marxist-Leninist teaching on education.

In 1928, M. Gorky visited the colony, which had bore his name since 1926. He wrote about this: “Who could change and re-educate hundreds of children so unrecognizably, so cruelly and insultingly battered by life? The organizer and head of the colony is A. S. Makarenko. This is undoubtedly a talented teacher. The colonists really love him and speak of him with such pride as if they themselves had created him.”

The heroic story of the creation and flourishing of this colony is beautifully depicted by A. S. Makarenko in his “Pedagogical Poem”. He began writing it in 1925. The entire work was published in parts in 1933-1935.

In 1928-1935 Makarenko led the commune named after F.E. Dzerzhinsky, organized by Kharkov security officers. While working here, he was able to confirm the vitality and effectiveness of the principles and methods of communist education that he formulated. The life of the commune is reflected by A. S. Makarenko in his work “Flags on the Towers.”

In 1935, Makarenko was transferred to Kyiv to head the pedagogical part of the labor colonies of the NKVD of Ukraine. In 1936 he moved to Moscow, where he was engaged in theoretical teaching activities. He often spoke among teachers and before a wide audience of readers of his works.

In 1937, A. S. Makarenko’s major artistic and pedagogical work “A Book for Parents” was published. An early death interrupted the work of the author, who intended to write 4 volumes of this book. In the 30s, a large number of articles by A. S. Makarenko of a literary, journalistic and pedagogical nature appeared in the newspapers “Izvestia”, “Pravda”, “Literary Newspaper”. These articles aroused great interest among readers. Makarenko often gave lectures and reports on pedagogical issues, and consulted teachers and parents a lot. He also spoke on the radio. A number of his lectures for parents were repeatedly published under the title “Lectures on Raising Children.” A. S. Makarenko died on April 1, 1939.

2. The most important principles of pedagogical theory and practice A.S.

Makarenko

A. S. Makarenko believed that a teacher’s clear knowledge of the goals of education is the most indispensable condition for successful pedagogical activity. In the conditions of Soviet society, the goal of education should be, he pointed out, the education of an active participant in socialist construction, a person devoted to the ideas of communism. Makarenko argued that achieving this goal is quite possible. “... Raising a new person is a happy and feasible task for pedagogy,” he said, meaning Marxist-Leninist pedagogy.

Respect for the child’s personality, a benevolent view of his potential to perceive the good, become better and show an active attitude towards the environment have invariably been the basis of the innovative pedagogical activity of A. S. Makarenko. He approached his students with Gorky’s appeal: “As much respect for a person as possible and as much demand for him as possible.” To the call for all-forgiving, patient love for children, which was widespread in the 20s, Makarenko added his own: love and respect for children must necessarily be combined with requirements for them; children need “demanding love,” he said. Socialist humanism, expressed in these words and running through Makarenko’s entire pedagogical system, is one of its main principles. A. S. Makarenko deeply believed in the creative powers of man, in his capabilities. He sought to “project the best in man.

Supporters of “free education” objected to any punishment of children, declaring that “punishment raises a slave.” Makarenko rightly objected to them, saying that “impunity breeds a hooligan,” and believed that wisely chosen, skillfully and rarely applied punishments, except, of course, corporal, are quite acceptable.

A. S. Makarenko resolutely fought against pedology. He was one of the first to speak out against the “law” formulated by pedologists on the fatalistic conditioning of the fate of children by heredity and some unchangeable environment. He argued that anyone soviet child, offended or spoiled by the abnormal conditions of his life, can be corrected provided that a favorable environment is created and the correct methods of education are applied.

In any educational Soviet institution, pupils should be oriented towards the future, and not towards the past, call them forward, and open up joyful, real prospects for them. Orientation to the future, according to Makarenko, is the most important law of socialist construction, which is entirely directed towards the future; it corresponds to the life aspirations of every person. “To educate a person means to educate him,” said A. S. Makarenko, “promising paths along which his tomorrow’s joy is located. You can write a whole methodology for this most important work.” This work should be organized according to a “system of promising lines.”

3. Education in the team and through the team

The central problem of pedagogical practice and theory of A. S. Makarenko is the organization and education of a children's team, which N. K. Krupskaya also spoke about.

The October Revolution put forward the urgent task of communist education of a collectivist, and it is natural that the idea of ​​education in a team occupied the minds of Soviet teachers of the 20s.

The great merit of A. S. Makarenko was that he developed a complete theory of the organization and education of the children's team and the individual in the team and through the team. Makarenko saw the main task of educational work in the proper organization of the team. “Marxism,” he wrote, “teaches us that we cannot consider the individual outside society, outside the collective.” The most important quality of a Soviet person is his ability to live in a team, enter into constant communication with people, work and create, and subordinate his personal interests to the interests of the team.

A. S. Makarenko persistently searched for forms of organizing children's institutions that would correspond to the humane goals of Soviet pedagogy and contribute to the formation of a creative, purposeful personality. “We need,” he wrote, “new forms of life in children’s society, capable of producing the positive desired values ​​in the field of education. Only great effort in pedagogical thought, only close and harmonious analysis, only invention and testing can lead us to these forms.” Collective forms of education distinguish Soviet pedagogy from bourgeois pedagogy. “Perhaps,” Makarenko wrote, “the main difference between our educational system from the bourgeois lies in the fact that our children's collective must necessarily grow and become rich, must see a better tomorrow ahead and strive for it in a joyful general tension, in a persistent joyful dream. Perhaps this is where the true pedagogical dialectic lies.” It is necessary to create, Makarenko believed, a perfect system of large and small collective units, to develop a system of their relationships and interdependencies, a system of influence on each student, and also to establish collective and personal relationships between teachers, students and the head of the institution. The most important “mechanism” pedagogical means is “parallel influence” - the simultaneous influence of the teacher on the team, and through it on each student.

Clarifying the educational essence of the team, A. S. Makarenko emphasized that a real team must have a common goal, engage in diverse activities, and have bodies that direct its life and work.

He believed that the most important condition for ensuring the cohesion and development of a team is that its members have a conscious prospect of moving forward. Upon achieving the set goal, it is necessary to put forward another, even more joyful and promising, but necessarily located in the sphere of general long-term goals that face Soviet society building socialism.

A. S. Makarenko was the first to formulate and scientifically substantiate the requirements that the teaching staff of an educational institution must meet, and the rules of its relationship with the team of students.

The art of leading a team, according to Makarenko, lies in captivating it with a specific goal that requires common effort, labor, and tension. In this case, achieving the goal gives great satisfaction. A cheerful, joyful, cheerful atmosphere is necessary for a children's group.

4.About labor education

A. S. Makarenko said that correct communist education cannot be without labor. Our state is a state of workers. Our Constitution says: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.” And educators must teach children to work creatively. This can be achieved only by instilling in them the idea of ​​work as the duty of a Soviet person. Anyone who is not accustomed to work, does not know what labor effort is, who is afraid of the “sweat of labor,” cannot see labor as a source of creativity. Labor education, Makarenko believed, is one of the most important elements physical culture, at the same time promotes the mental, spiritual development of a person.

A. S. Makarenko sought to instill in his colonists the ability to engage in any type of work, regardless of whether they liked it or not, whether it was pleasant or unpleasant. From an uninteresting task, such as work for beginners, it gradually becomes a source of creativity, a source of pride and joy, such as, for example, the holiday of the first sheaf described in the “Pedagogical Poem.” The institutions headed by Makarenko developed their own system labor education, a custom was established: the most hard work entrust to the best squad.

Speaking about the organization of labor education in school and family, A. S. Makarenko believed that in the process of children performing work tasks, they should be trained in acquiring organizational skills, develop their ability to navigate work, plan it, cultivate a caring attitude towards the time spent, product of labor.

“Participation in collective work,” said A. S. Makarenko, “allows a person to develop the correct moral attitude towards other people - kindred love and friendship towards every worker, indignation and condemnation towards a lazy person, towards a person who shirks work.” .

5. The importance of play in education

A. S. Makarenko believed that play has the same meaning for a child as “activity, work, service” for an adult. The future activist, he said, is brought up primarily in the game: “The entire history of an individual person as an activist and worker can be represented in the development of the game and in its gradual transition to work.” Noting the enormous influence of play on a preschool child, Makarenko revealed a number of important problems related to this issue in his lectures on raising children. He spoke about the methodology of play, about the connection between play and work, about the forms of management of children's play by adults, and gave a classification of toys.

He suggested taking the time to “distract the child from play and transfer him to work effort and work care.” But at the same time, he said, one cannot ignore the fact that there are people who bring “game attitudes from childhood into serious life.” Therefore, it is necessary to organize the game in such a way that during the process the child develops “the qualities of a future worker and citizen.”

Covering the issues of play methodology, A. S. Makarenko believed that children should be active in play, experience the joy of creativity, aesthetic experiences, feel responsibility, and take the rules of the game seriously. Parents and educators should be interested in children's play. Children should not be forced to repeat only what adults do with a toy, nor should they be “thrown at with a wide variety of toys: “Children... at best become toy collectors, and in worst case, most often, they move from toy to toy without any interest, play without passion, spoil and break toys and demand new ones.” Makarenko distinguished games in preschool age from games of children. He also spoke about the peculiarities of games in high school age.

Speaking about the management of children's games, A. S. Makarenko pointed out that at first it is important for parents to combine the child's individual play with collective games. Then, when children get older and play in a larger group, the game is played in an organized manner with the participation of qualified teachers. Further, it must take more strict forms of collective play, in which there must be a moment of collective interest and collective discipline must be observed.

Classifying toys, A. S. Makarenko identified the following types:

1). A ready-made or mechanical toy: dolls, horses, cars, etc. It is good because it introduces complex ideas and things and develops imagination. It is necessary that the child keeps these toys not to show off them, but really for play, to organize some kind of movement, to depict this or that life situation.

2). A semi-finished toy, such as: pictures with questions, boxes, construction sets, cubes, etc. They are good because they pose certain tasks for the child, the solution of which requires the work of thought. But at the same time, they also have disadvantages: they are monotonous and therefore can bore children.

3). The most beneficial game element is various materials. They most closely resemble the activities of an adult. Such toys are realistic, and at the same time they give scope for great creative imagination.

IN play activity Preschool children need to combine these three types of toys, Makarenko believed. He also analyzed in detail the content of the games of junior and senior schoolchildren and... gave a number of tips on how they should be organized.

6.About family education

A. S. Makarenko paid great attention to issues family education. He argued that the family should be a collective in which children receive their initial education and which, along with public educational institutions, influences proper development and the formation of the child’s personality. Makarenko argued that only in keeping with the family will children receive proper upbringing, which recognizes itself as a part of Soviet society, in which the activities of the parent?! is seen as something necessary for society.

Pointing out that the Soviet family should be a collective, Makarenko emphasized that it is a “free Soviet collective” that cannot submit to the arbitrariness of the father, as was the case in the old family. Parents have power and authority, but they are not uncontrollable in their actions. The father is a responsible member of the team; he should be an example for the children as a citizen. Parents must always remember that the child is not only their joy and hope, but also a future citizen for whom they are responsible to Soviet society.

According to Makarenko, a family should have several children. This prevents the development of selfish tendencies in the child and makes it possible to organize mutual assistance between children different ages, contributes to the development in each child of the traits and qualities of a collectivist, the ability to give in to another and subordinate one’s interests to common interests.

Parents, as already mentioned, must show demanding love for their children, not indulge their whims and caprices, have a well-deserved authority in the eyes of their children. A. S. Makarenko pointed out that parents often replace real authority with false one, and gave a very subtle analysis various types false authority of parents. The first he names is authority, suppression, when there is paternal terror in the family, turning the mother into a dumb slave and intimidating the children. By causing constant fear in their children, such fathers turn their children into downtrodden, weak-willed creatures, from whom they grow up to be either worthless people or tyrants. The second type of false authority is the authority of distance. It is based on the desire of parents to keep their children away from themselves, not to allow them to get involved in their interests, affairs, and thoughts. As unreasonable as the authority of distance is, familiarity is just as unacceptable in the family. A. S. Makarenko considered the authority of love to be one of the most dangerous false authorities. He strongly condemned parents who pamper and pamper their children, uncontrollably showering them with endless caresses and countless kisses, without making any demands on them and without denying them anything. It was precisely this behavior of parents that Makarenko contrasted with his teaching about demanding love for a person. He also spoke about such types of false authority as the authority of arrogance, reasoning, and bribery. He considered the latter the most immoral and mildly condemned parents who seek good behavior from their children only with the help of rewards. And S. Makarenko pointed out that such treatment of parents by parents entails the moral corruption of children.

A. S. Makarenko rightly emphasized that the true authority of parents, based on reasonable requirements for children, the moral behavior of the parents themselves as citizens of Soviet society, as well as correct mode family life - the most important conditions well-organized family education. He gave advice to parents on how to raise children through work, how to properly organize relationships between children of different ages in the family, help children study, guide their games, and strengthen their friendships with friends.

CONCLUSION

A. S. Makarenko played a huge role in the development of Soviet pedagogical science. Based on the teachings of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and the grandiose experience of mass re-education of people under the conditions of the construction of socialism, he developed many specific issues of the theory of Soviet education. He created wonderful works of socialist realism, in which the typical features of our reality are shown in artistically generalized images, and the path of educating the new Soviet man is revealed.

The creative experience of A. S. Makarenko, like his pedagogical works, is excellent convincing evidence of the superiority of Soviet pedagogy over bourgeois theories of education.

Bibliography

1. Bushkanets M.G., Leukhin B.D., “Anthology on Pedagogy”, edited by Z.I. Ravkina, Moscow, “Enlightenment”

2.A.S. Makarenko, “Collected Works in 4 volumes”, Moscow, “Pravda”

3.M.P. Pavlova, “Pedagogical system of A.S. Makarenko", Moscow, "Higher School.

4.A.A. Frolov, “Organization of the educational process in the practice of A.S. Makarenko” edited by V.A. Slastenin and N.E. Fere, Gorky, Gorky State Pedagogical Institute

5. History of pedagogy - http://www.gala-d.ru/

GOAL OF EDUCATION. WHAT IT MEANS TO RAISING A CHILD. COMMUNIST EDUCATION. METHODOLOGY FOR ORGANIZING THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS

MAKARENKO ANTON SEMENOVYCH(1888-1939), teacher and writer. Russia, USSR.

He grew up in the family of a master painter (the village of Belopole, Kharkov province). In 1905 he graduated from the city school and pedagogical courses and was appointed a teacher at a two-class railway school. And in 1914-1917. studied at the Poltava Teachers' Institute. Upon graduation, he became the head of the higher primary school in Kryukovo. Already here M. became thoroughly interested in pedagogy, looking for something new in educational work both with individual students and with the team.

Did the October Revolution play a decisive role in the pedagogical fate of M., as was written about it before? Hardly. Most likely, M., with his talent, would still have succeeded as a teacher. Of course, the first years of Soviet power and its actions in the field of public education were inspiring and involved in the search. But several years have passed, and the situation is changing, a period of “creativity with caution” begins, and then strict control. It is quite possible that under favorable conditions his socio-pedagogical activities would have achieved even more amazing results.

M.'s phenomenon began in 1920, when he organized a labor colony for juvenile offenders. Here the teacher succeeded in the main thing - he found a strong means of education, which he became the team of students themselves. An important role in its creation was played by M.’s authority, his patience, firmness, care for teenagers, and justice. People were drawn to him as to a father, looking for truth and protection. In the colony, which received the name of Gorky, a system of structural interactions in the team was determined: assets, division into detachments, a council of commanders, external paraphernalia (banner, bugler signals, report, uniform), rewards and punishments, traditions. Later M. formulated laws of team development, the most important of which he considered the “system of perspective lines” and the “principle of parallel pedagogical influence.”

M. combined education in a team with correctly labor education. The work of the colonists was organized into groups and combined with study. And life kept throwing up new problems. Paradoxically, it turned out that a well-functioning work system can cause calm and relaxation. M. believed that this is why the internal development of the Gorky colony was suspended. He found a way out in setting a new task - “the conquest of Kuryazh.” About 130 colonists left their old established household and voluntarily moved to the dilapidated Kuryazh to help 280 unruly street children become human. The risk paid off; the friendly team of Gorky residents relatively quickly restored order in the new place, and not by force. The pedagogy of M.’s team worked another time, when in 1927 he simultaneously became the head of the Dzerzhinsky colony, transferring 60 of his students to it. Since 1929, M. has retained only the last colony, which soon becomes fully self-sufficient: complex production of electric drills and cameras has been established.

Today, reproaches and accusations are being made against M. about the barracks discipline he allegedly introduced in the colony, the authoritarianism of the teacher himself and the team he created, disregard for the Personality, and complicity in the formation of the cult of the party and Stalin. But are they justified? The ideas of personal development in a team, if not publicly announced by M. as the goal of his pedagogical system, were successfully implemented in practice. The communes worked daily for 4 hours, and their free time was devoted to well-organized leisure. The commune had a club, a library, clubs, sports clubs, a cinema, and a theater. In the summer, tourist trips were made to the Caucasus and Crimea. Those who wished to continue their education studied at the workers' faculty and entered universities. There are statistics: over the 15 years of its work (1920-1935), about 8,000 delinquents and homeless people passed through the teams created by M., who became worthy people and qualified specialists. Of course, like any teacher, M. also did not avoid mistakes and failures.

Since 1936, M. left his teaching career, moved to Moscow and was engaged in literary work. Here he survived the tragic years of 1937 and 1938.

M.’s experience is unique, just as the teacher himself is unique. Few people in the history of pedagogy were able to so successfully translate their theory into practice and achieve impressive results when dealing with such difficult students. The exaltation of M. began back in the 30s, and for a long time he was considered perhaps the most outstanding Soviet and even domestic teacher. Let us recall, however, that neither during M.’s life, nor after his death, the authorities, prescribing the study of his pedagogical system, were in no hurry to implement it, although there were plenty of colonies and corresponding “human material”. By the way, the same fate befell Shatsky’s talented experiment with the children’s community. Only a few teachers resorted to M.'s experience, some of them were at one time his students. M.'s name and works are widely known abroad.

Purpose of education

In pedagogical theory, oddly enough, the purpose of educational work has become an almost forgotten category. (...)

An organizational task worthy of our era and our revolution can only be the creation of a method that, being general and unified, at the same time, enables each individual to develop his own characteristics and preserve his individuality.

It is quite obvious that, when starting to solve our particular pedagogical task, we should not be wise. We must only understand well the position of the new man in the new society. Socialist society is based on the principle of collectivity. It should not contain a solitary individual, sometimes bulging out like a pimple, sometimes crushed into roadside dust, but rather a member of the socialist collective.

In the Soviet Union there cannot be an individual outside the collective and therefore there cannot be a separate personal fate and personal path and happiness opposed to the fate and happiness of the collective.

In a socialist society there are many such groups:

The broad Soviet public consists entirely of precisely such groups, but this does not mean at all that teachers are relieved of the duty to seek and find perfect collective forms in their work. The school community, a unit of Soviet children's society, must first of all become the object of educational work. When educating an individual, we must think about educating the entire team. In practice, these two problems will be solved only jointly and only in one general way. At every moment of our influence on the individual, these influences must necessarily also be an influence on the collective. And vice versa, each of our touches on the collective will necessarily be the education of each individual included in the collective.

The collective, which should be the first goal of our education, must have very definite qualities that clearly follow from its socialist character...

A. The team unites people not only in a common goal and in common work, but also in the general organization of this work. The common goal here is not a random coincidence of private goals, as in a tram car or in a theater, but precisely the goal of the entire team. The relation between a general and a particular goal for us is not a relation of opposites, but only a relation between the general (and therefore mine) and the particular, which, while remaining only mine, will be summed up into the general in a special order.

Each action of an individual student, each of his success or failure should be regarded as a failure against the background of the common cause, as success in the common cause. Such pedagogical logic should literally permeate every school day, every movement of the team.

B. The collective is part of Soviet society, organically connected with all other collectives. He bears the first responsibility to society, he bears the first duty to the entire country, only through the collective does each member enter society. This is where the idea of ​​Soviet discipline comes from. In this case, every student will understand the interests of the team and the concepts of duty and honor. Only in such instrumentation is it possible to foster harmony of personal and common interests, to cultivate that sense of honor that in no way resembles the old ambition of an arrogant rapist.

B. Achieving the goals of the team, common work, duty and honor of the team cannot become a game of the random whims of individual people. A team is not a crowd. The collective is a social organism, therefore, it has management and coordination bodies authorized primarily to represent the interests of the collective and society.

The experience of collective life is not only the experience of being in the neighborhood with other people, it is a very complex experience of expedient collective movements, among which the most prominent place is occupied by the principles of command, discussion, subordination to the majority, subordination of comrade to comrade, responsibility and consistency.

Bright and broad prospects are opening up for teaching work in Soviet schools. The teacher is called upon to create this exemplary organization, preserve it, improve it, and pass it on to new teaching staff. Not paired moralizing, but tactful and wise leadership of the correct growth of the team - this is his calling.

D. The Soviet collective stands on the principled position of the world unity of working humanity. This is not just an everyday association of people; it is part of the battle front of humanity in the era of world revolution. All the previous properties of the collective will not resonate if the pathos of the historical struggle that we are experiencing does not live in its life. All other qualities of the team should be united and nurtured in this idea. The collective must always, literally at every step, have examples of our struggle; it must always feel ahead of itself the Communist Party, leading it to true happiness.

From these provisions about the collective flow all the details of personal development. We must graduate from our schools energetic and ideological members of socialist society, capable without hesitation, always, at every moment of their lives, of finding the correct criterion for personal action, capable at the same time of demanding correct behavior from others. Our pupil, no matter who he is, can never act in life as a bearer of some kind of personal perfection, only as a kind or honest person. He must always act, first of all, as a member of his team, as a member of society, responsible for the actions not only of himself, but also of his comrades.

Particularly important is the area of ​​discipline in which we, teachers, have sinned the most. Until now, we have a view of discipline as one of the many attributes of a person and sometimes only as a method, sometimes only as a form. In a socialist society, free from any otherworldly foundations of morality, discipline becomes not a technical, but a necessarily moral category. Therefore, the discipline of inhibition is absolutely alien to our team, which now, due to some misunderstanding, has become the alpha and omega of the educational wisdom of many teachers. Discipline expressed only in prohibitive norms is the worst type of moral education in the Soviet school. (...)

Makarenko A.S. About education. - M., 1988. - pp. 28-30