Sometimes – by agreement of topics and interchangeability – you can limit yourself to two

Sometimes – by agreement of topics and interchangeability – you can limit yourself to two

However, many questions will disappear by themselves if we keep in mind not only physical health, but all types of health (physical, mental (psychological), spiritual), which should not only be “saved”, but developed and strengthened at school by each of its pet … And these types of health in the form of an ascending line can be built as follows:

Then the concept of physical health will naturally include items that strengthen his body and preserve its safety – physical education and health and safety. 

The concept of mental health – harmonizing the spiritual world, internal and external human abilities – technology, art and psychology.

And spiritual health will become an object of concern on the part of ethical and religious subjects – “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” or “Fundamentals of Religious Cultures and Secular Ethics.” 

Thus, in order to conduct a full-fledged “cluster lesson” that takes a full school day, as a rule, only three specialist teachers (and not 6-7 as now) will be needed – a naturalist, a humanist and a health specialist.

Sometimes – by agreement of topics and interchangeability – you can limit yourself to two. We often have cases when even one teacher coped with all the variety of “cluster lessons” – naturally with good preliminary preparation and reliance on the highly developed class collective and the mechanisms of its self-government. Here there is a real saving of pedagogical labor costs, when the teacher is partially freed from the lesson “conveyor” turnover and can focus on strategic educational and educational goals, as well as individual work with students.  

Although, of course, strategically, the system of pedagogical education in Russia should be rebuilt. It is necessary to move away from the modern, such a narrow specialization of future teachers, when they simply become functions of transferring narrowly subject knowledge inherent in them, and not teachers and educators in the full sense of these lofty concepts. 

We will consider the educational block of the new educational system tomorrow. 

I ask you in the comments, among other things, to indicate the number of the statement with which you agree:

1. I fully support the new educational system and ministry pedagogy.

2. I sympathize with some of the ideas for a new educational system and ministry pedagogy.

3. I am totally against the new educational system and ministry pedagogy.

Subscribe to the author’s channel of Alexander Dedushka

The problem of teaching “unteachable” children arose already in Soviet times: teachers were faced with the fact that there are children who do not master the material and do not master educational skills (reading, writing, counting), despite the titanic efforts of the children and teachers themselves. Education not only did not lead to the development of children, but, on the contrary, aroused in such children a persistent reluctance to learn, they “fell out” of school education, turned into marginalized or joined the ranks of asocial groups.

To solve this problem, the right decision was made: to create a whole direction in Soviet pedagogy: correctional and developmental (not to be confused with correctional schools of 1-8 types). These were classes of correctional and developmental education (KRO) in ordinary general education schools, they recruited children with the following problems: children with dysgraphia, dyslexia, PDD, ADHD, cerebral palsy, with pedagogical neglect, with perception disabilities, bilingual children, left-handers and retrained left-handers, improperly trained children, children with various physical and neuropsychological, congenital or acquired defects or features of organization of behavior, speech, hearing, vision, fine motor skills of hands and intellect, emotionally disadvantaged children and children who have suffered emotional trauma – that is, all those children who needed additional PEDAGOGICAL assistance without the allocation of these children to specialized institutions. These are the children for whom special schools were not required and the main emphasis was placed on the development of such children. Wonderful programs were written and excellent learning conditions were created – 7-14 people per class.

BUT there were two omissions.

Firstly, teachers working in KRO classes, in the overwhelming majority, did not complete the necessary retraining and training courses, and students were taught as before.

Secondly, there were no good publicly available methods for working with problem children, the children themselves and their problems were not studied.

As a result, in some cases, KRO classes achieved high results (indicators were at the level of ordinary classes and even higher – especially in primary school when teaching the skills of reading, writing and counting), but in the overwhelming majority, the successes were insignificant, and sometimes these classes turned into “Sedimentation tanks”, where the teachers perceived them so.

In the depths of KRO, in parallel with teaching children, there was a process of creating good techniques. But by the time when the methodological base for teaching children from the KRO group had already been created, when the teachers established communication with neuropsychologists, speech therapists, and defectologists, when teacher training centers began to be created, the whole country switched to per capita funding of schools and correctional and developmental education was closed.

KRO classes were gone, but problem children remained, they were returned to general classes. And the teachers who work with the class, as before, for the most part do not have the necessary ideas about children at risk, they do not have appropriate methods for teaching problem children in the classroom, and some methods used in the old-fashioned way only harm such quotations on essay my hero in history allama iqbal children, lessons as they were and remain designed for the training of the “average student”.

Children from the KRO group today are not classified as children with disabilities, they do not have special INCLUSION rights, but it makes no sense to transfer them to correctional schools of 1-8 types. And again these children, dropping out of the educational process, join the ranks of children with deviant, asocial behavior or become marginalized, experiencing humiliation.

Does the “pedagogical” government of the country (the Minister of Education and heads of regional education departments) see this problem? No, they do not see it – they did not register it in the Federal State Educational Standards, which means that they will not decide, even if their own children are dysgraphic, for example. The issue will be resolved through a private school or tutors.

Do they see this problem in pedagogical universities and colleges in order to train teachers in a new way? No, they do not see, no one poses such a problem-task to them.

Do head teachers, teachers, parents see this problem? Yes, they see, but again, with the existing federal state educational standards, there should not be such a problem, because according to the documents there are no such children, no staff units and rates, no methodological support, or at least reservations or footnotes in small print, that such children may possibly be.

How do schools deal with the situation? Children are given grades, they are transferred from class to class, with unformed skills of literate writing, counting and reading, while making a note in their minds or on a separate piece of paper a note “UNLEACHED”. And no one is going to solve this problem.

Here is a typical example from a typical Moscow school: a 6th grade boy has dysgraphia (diagnosed in a specialized center), while his intellectual and speech skills are perfectly developed, he shines in oral subjects, but as soon as it comes to writing, then he has there will be a deuce even in the dictionary dictation – the child “DOES NOT TEACH” with standard-averaged learning. Yes, the teacher knows that the boy is dysgraphic, knows the specialist’s clearly prescribed recommendations for working with him in the lesson, knows that the child needs special conditions in the lesson (under which the boy performs tasks for real triplets and fours, and the observance of which does not require the teacher large expenditures of energy), but … But the child does not belong to the HIA category, and the teacher, together with the head teacher, declare that the child “is not entitled to indulgences, so that others do not need it, and the teacher cannot violate general methodological requirements,” and if Commission to formally diagnose, then the boy needs to be transferred to a correctional school. That’s it, the question is closed: either a child with disabilities, then a place for him in a special school of the seventh type, or a child without disabilities, then he will not have “concessions”. The question of inclusion is not raised, and there are no KRO classes in which the child could be helped.

What are the ways to solve this problem? They are.

But I would like to hear the opinion of colleagues, otherwise, perhaps, the author is mistaken, something he does not see or does not understand in solving such problems.

I invite even those who do not see a problem in it to discuss this topic.

The problem of teaching “unteachable” children arose already in Soviet times: teachers were faced with the fact that there are children who do not master the material and do not master educational skills (reading, writing, counting), despite the titanic efforts of the children and teachers themselves.