During the interregional conference “Development unified system assessment of the quality of education - experience and prospects”, which took place in Sochi on July 4-5, 2017, the director of the Institute of Pedagogy, Svetlana Anatolyevna Pisareva, and the head of the department of methods of teaching mathematics and computer science, Victoria Igorevna Snegurova, proposed a model for level assessment of teacher competencies and its testing in 2017.

Testing of the assessment begins very soon and will consist of several types of actions, including an open video lesson, which will be assessed by federal and regional experts according to pre-developed criteria. Voluntary-compulsory participation of teachers is planned to be ensured in 13 Russian regions.

The teachers prepared Open letter To the Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation O.Yu. Vasilyeva and other officials, which can be read in full and signed via the link.

Here are excerpts from the letter.

OPEN LETTER

The teaching community has become familiar with the model and expresses deep gratitude to you for such attention to the issues of organizing vigilant control of our “competencies” (previously, this was, however, called professional level, but more on that below). We understand what efforts of will it cost you to forget that a teacher’s qualifications have already been confirmed by a state diploma, and the only system of external control over such – certification – is already provided for by the Law on Education. We ask you to convey special gratitude to those regional leaders who, with no less effort of will, also managed to force themselves to forget about the Law and still sent their teachers to test this model. ...

But if we nevertheless discard such a trifle as the rights and freedoms of the teacher, guaranteed by the Law on Education and other Laws, as well as our state diplomas, which today are increasingly carried semantic load fig leaf, then it should immediately be noted that the testing period was chosen simply ideally! There could be no better time to test a teacher! After all, it is in September that our teachers suffer from idleness and melancholy, walk from corner to corner of their offices and do not know what to do. Yes Yes! They have absolutely nothing to do! Well, if you don’t count such little things as: getting textbooks and manuals from the library and giving them textbooks and manuals to the youth, bringing the same youths into working condition after a long vacation; introduction of a new schedule and its “grinding in” to the offices; parent meetings; filling out logs; delivery of plans and programs; preparation of statistical reports; instructive and methodological meetings, methodological associations; receptions and receptions of sanitary epidemiologists, fire inspectors, medical workers, representatives of the traffic police and other “dear” guests; holding health days, tourist events, layout plans extracurricular activities; registration of contracts for the provision of additional services, supervision services, care services, social and ped services. support, mental health services. diagnostics and again for support, and other tertiary (today) little things, such as: conducting lessons and preparing for them, checking assignments, class manuals and being on duty during breaks. ...

In general, such invaluable experience in wholesale “valuation” should not remain within one system. It needs to be replicated urgently! Why are some teachers so happy? Moreover, since its authors are from the Russian State University named after. Herzen argues, neither more nor less, but this: “THE FRAMEWORK LIST OF COMPETENCIES IS SUFFICIENTLY HOMOGENEOUS FOR ANY PROFESSION”... Then the Ministry of Finance should be invited to check the bankers and sift through the “office plankton”. The Ministry of Health urgently needs to “assess” the competencies of doctors - after which the latter will definitely begin to cut deeper and faster, and write prescriptions right on the cloakroom counters. The Ministry of Culture can urgently send all writers to assess their writing competencies. Can you imagine how they will record it after this? In no way can we forget about theater, film and circus artists - these in the first place. Straight from the costumes (possibly with decorations) and straight from the September premieres. Circus performers along with bears and tigers. If the animals become stubborn or get sick, call us - we’ll replace them and play along. We are no strangers to this. After we were publicly whipped on the cheeks voluntarily - forced passing the Unified State Exam, a couple or three blows with a whip, it’s like a mosquito bite to us... We also ask you not to forget about engineers, housing and communal services employees and other professional communities. ...

Dear authors, we are not against it, but please clarify, what are you going to “evaluate” with us? After all, if there are “competencies”, then this is not for us at all, but for those who established them - employers. And if “competence” (qualification and professionalism), but without certification?.. Then it would be logical to first take away our diplomas and, of course, cancel the results of those certifications that we have already passed earlier... Really, is it worth the rush? Or maybe it’s not us who should be taken away at all? And not only diplomas, but also scientific titles and positions? After all, if you look at what you write next, it will become clear who needs to be checked for professionalism (competence), and based on the results of the check, they should be urgently deprived of the previously so recklessly granted positions and the corresponding competencies...

After all, wanting to “evaluate” the teacher, you state: “In the office where you work, there is necessary equipment in accordance with Federal State Educational Standards general education." And it would be good if the Federal State Educational Standard had at least one section dedicated to issues provision of teaching aids. However, he is not and never was. And this tells us that the authors of a certain “evaluation model” themselves never fully read the Federal State Educational Standard...

By asking the question: “What elements subject environment and how will you use it when teaching a generalization lesson in two different classes (for example, 5 and 10)? How will these lessons be different?” You prove to us that you don’t know either the methodology or the sample programs! A mathematics lesson in the fifth grade differs from a lesson in the tenth primarily in that in the latter there is no mathematics, but there is algebra, the beginnings of mathematical analysis and geometry... And the general lessons there (as well as lessons in general) are quantities of completely different methodological orders, not subject to professional comparative characteristics! ...

Only one thing remains unclear. On what planets do people live who believe that individual total control of everything will solve the problems of the quality of education? On what planets do people live who believe that “competence” and “competence” mean the same thing and are allowed to endlessly defame scientific concepts and torment native language? These are probably pleasant planets to live in, and we are generally happy for their inhabitants. But we still live on a different one. And we don’t understand why those from planets alien to us consider us a stupid, soulless, uncomplaining cog of a substance they invented.

Dear Olga Yurievna!

Please order your subordinates to think at least a little. Think before you speak, and even more so, think before you do something. Instruct them to read a lot first before writing anything. Command them to see and respect us, the teachers and the children who sit in our classrooms. We hope that they will listen to you. It would also be very nice to make them learn and realize that it is not us for them, but they must exist and act for us. This is expressed in one phrase: “People engaged in pedagogical work, do not need advice, but conditions.”

And then, only after this, our planets, if not completely unite, will at least enter the same orbit.

The Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science presented a model level assessment competencies of teachers of the Russian language and mathematics, which is a continuation of the study of teacher competencies begun in 2016. Experts spoke about how the model will be tested in the regions and the results will be analyzed. Deputy Minister of Education and Science of Russia T.Yu. took part in the discussion. Sinyugina.

For a long time we spent preparatory work, approbation was discussed both with the teaching community and with the subjects participating in it Russian Federation. Voluntary participation is important to us. The result will allow us to talk about the possibility of building an individual trajectory for the development of teacher professionalism and competencies, and this will require restructuring the work of all institutions that work to improve the qualifications of teachers, said Tatyana Yuryevna.

More than 4.5 thousand teachers of the Russian language and mathematics from 13 constituent entities of the Russian Federation will take part in testing the developed model, who have expressed their willingness to participate in its implementation.

When talking about the quality of education, the role of the teacher cannot be underestimated. Therefore the assessment professional competencies teachers for different stages professional career is the most important direction of educational policy,” explained the head of Rosobrnadzor S.S. Kravtsov.

According to him, the results of the implementation diagnostic work will give teachers the opportunity to self-reflect and see for themselves their strengths and weaknesses.

Test participants will have to perform diagnostic work, including 20 subject tasks, three methodological tasks and one professional task - to demonstrate your professional knowledge and teaching experience in the proposed situation. In addition, testing participants will conduct an open video lesson, which will be assessed by federal and regional experts.

During testing, contextual information necessary for analyzing the results of the study will also be collected (experience, qualification category, study load, educational and methodological kits used, etc.).

To complete the work, each testing participant will be provided with an electronic personal account. Personal accounts have also been created for regional experts who will participate in checking diagnostic work. The system of personal accounts will allow teachers to transmit their work over the Internet for verification by experts from other regions.

Personal results of teachers’ participation in testing are not subject to disclosure. Analysis of the testing results will be carried out on a general array of anonymized data.

Participated in the development and examination of the model Russian Academy education, associations of teachers of mathematics and literature and the Russian language, specialists from the Academy of Advanced Training and professional retraining education workers (APKiPPRO).

Results of model testing, Head of Rosobrnadzor S.S. Kravtsov proposed discussing at meetings of the All-Russian Association of Mathematics Teachers and the Association of Teachers of Literature and Russian Language with the participation of teachers who have experienced this model assessments on yourself.

We are ready for discussion, ready to take into account wishes and make adjustments. Now it is important to work out the technology, methodology, discuss the results and then think about continuing this work,” said the head of Rosobrnadzor.

For information

The purpose of the methodology for level assessment of competencies, developed by specialists of the Russian State pedagogical university them. A.I. Herzen, is to obtain reliable information about the level professional competence every teacher and separate groups teachers.

In the future, assessing the competencies of teachers should become one of the elements of the national system of professional development of teachers, which is being developed by the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia on behalf of the President of the Russian Federation.

In September, 15 million schoolchildren will sit at their desks, and about a million teachers will teach them. But now not only students, but also teachers will take exams.

This fall, a new model for assessing the knowledge and skills of Russian language and mathematics teachers will be tested in 13 regions. As Rosobrnadzor told RG, 300 schools and at least 4,000 teachers will take part in the testing.

Why these particular items? At school they are the most important, and the Unified State Examination on them is mandatory. According to statistics, there are fewer and fewer failed students on the Unified State Exam, but the situation with oral speech and basic mathematical literacy is depressing. Many teachers have learned how to coach children to take tests, but are unable to teach knowledge well in their subject. The testing should show whether the teachers themselves know Russian and mathematics.

No one will fire teachers from their jobs or hand out reprimands for poor teaching. Rosobrnadzor plans to prepare recommendations for teacher training institutes and conduct certification in a new way. True, who, when and how tested the knowledge of the employees of advanced training institutes themselves is not known.

Recently, Rosobrnadzor conducted a study among history teachers. So, 60 percent of teachers said that they are dissatisfied with the way advanced training is being carried out in their regional institutes. It is no secret that sometimes teachers who become unsuitable at school go to these institutes. And the idea of ​​vouchers, when a teacher, having received a paid certificate, decides where to go to study - at Moscow State University or local courses - did not take root.

Your salary will not be increased for taking advanced training courses. But in order to get a category - second, first or highest, the courses are important. For the highest category, for example, a teacher can be paid from 15 to 70 percent of the salary.

Many teachers have learned to teach tests, but are not able to provide good knowledge in their subject

What do school teachers, university rectors and other experts think about all this?

If we say that Russian and mathematics are compulsory subjects that indicate the general level of education of a graduate, then the level of teacher training should correspond to the state’s requirements for a graduate,” says Konstantin Tkhostov, director of Lyceum No. 369 of the Krasnoselsky district of St. Petersburg.

Teachers and lesson guides

Every teacher must undergo advanced training every three years. No one will be fired as a result of the audit. It’s just that the teacher will be given a targeted recommendation,” the rector of Volgograd told RG state academy postgraduate education Svetlana Kulikova.

She emphasized that Rosobrnadzor is now working on test materials- “Unified State Exam for Teachers”, as it is called in the professional community. Several schools will be identified that will be included in the program.

Adygea, like the Volgograd region, is among those where the new teacher evaluation model will be tested. Anzaur Kerashev, Minister of Education and Science of Adygea, explained that more than 200 teachers of Russian language and literature are ready to come to this study.

In the Yaroslavl region, teachers are also ready for testing and consider it necessary. Why? Irina Loboda, director of the Department of Education of the Yaroslavl region, answers this way:

We have already conducted monitoring studies at the regional level, and now it is important for us to see ourselves at the country level.

But Tatarstan itself asked for testing. One of the reasons: to get rid of bad teachers who ended up in school by accident.

We call such people “lesson teachers.” What to do with such teachers? Formally, they have the right to work, they have a diploma. We need a rating system that would allow naturally“, without offending anyone, select real professionals,” explains the head of the development department additional education Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Tatarstan Roza Shayakhmetova.

Infographics "RG": Anton Perepletchikov/Irina Ivoilova

Called to the board

Teacher of Russian language and literature at Lyceum No. 5, Honored Teacher of the Volgograd Region, Irina Zinova, says that the opinion of the teaching community on the upcoming certification is divided.

Over the 35 years that I have been working at school, I have already seen many innovations. Of course, there has never been such a thing as an exam being held for all Russian specialists. But checks of a different kind were encountered. For example, we write the Unified State Exam ourselves. “The teacher must have the knowledge that he tests,” says Irina Zinova.

Testing teachers' knowledge is double stress. In May-June I took advanced training courses at the regional Institute for Educational Development. There was an entrance test, then a final test... But they said obvious, banal things during the courses. At the same time, we must pay tribute, technologically the work is perfectly organized,” says Natalya Kazakova, a teacher of Russian language and literature from Kaliningrad gymnasium No. 40.

The teacher believes that textbooks should be changed. She doesn't always like how it's given theoretical material. “There is a note on the page: “Take note.” And there is a serious rule,” explains Natalya Kazakova. - For children, any innovation is always difficult. And oral part of the Unified State Exam It won't be easy for them to pass. They have their own slang, oral speech is not very developed. When I give you a dictionary literary terms, they ask me: “Who are you talking to?”

Honored teacher of Russia Svetlana Mamonova from Yaroslavl admitted that the upcoming test of teachers gives her an ambivalent feeling.

On the one hand, this is necessary for the teacher. Because, unfortunately, young teachers often come to school not very prepared for work. On the other hand, it is not clear what kind of test this is and what it will include. If it is compiled on the basis school curriculum, is one thing. If there are assignments from a university course, the teacher may find himself in an awkward position. There are things, for example, from the theory of the Russian language that you studied at university, passed the exam and never returned to, says Svetlana Mamonova.

"Pros and cons"

Evgenia Matarzhuk, head of the department of certification and advanced training of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Khabarovsk Territory, sees a big plus in the fact that, in general, approaches to the teaching profession itself and its career growth are being revised.

Nowadays, a teacher, even the best one, still remains in the position of a teacher until retirement. And the new model career growth involves some kind of ranking: teacher - senior teacher - leading teacher. And this level assessment will make it possible to objectively provide the opportunity for a teacher’s professional growth,” she believes.

But there are other opinions. For example, the director of school No. 85 in Khabarovsk, Honored Teacher of the Russian Federation, Vasily Volosnikov, does not expect any serious changes either in teaching methods or in the teacher’s mind after approbation.

And we now have a gradation: a teacher corresponding to the position held, a teacher of the first category and a teacher of the highest category. The same thing is offered, but with a different name. We all went through this, and were there before - a teacher and a teacher-methodologist. What requirements will there be for teachers in accordance with new model, we don't know yet. Whether there will be an incentive to improve one’s skills is also unknown. And now there is an incentive: wage a teacher of the first category receives 15 percent more than a regular teacher, and the highest category gives an increase of 75 percent. And getting a category is extremely difficult - in fact, this is the same level assessment of a teacher,” the director expressed his opinion.

When Irina Gimatutdinova, a Russian language teacher at school No. 141 in Kazan, started working in work books listed as “senior teacher” and “teacher-methodologist”, which they plan to introduce, are not new.

This horizontal career advancement of a teacher was accompanied by an increase in salary. Then all this was canceled, certification was introduced and qualification categories. At its core, the current innovation apparently does not differ from the previous system, the teacher believes.

The editors of the Education Standards magazine sent a media request for information to Rosobrnadzor related to the testing of a model for level assessment of the competencies of teachers of the Russian language and mathematics in September 2017, in particular about the timing, regulations governing testing, departments (organizations) , universities), which are responsible for conducting testing.
We bring to your attention the response of Rosobrnadzor.
1) the dates for testing the model for level assessment of teacher competencies are set by Rosobrnadzor: September 14-15, September 25-27.
2) there are no regulations, testing work is carried out within the framework of a state contract between Rosobrnadzor and the Prosveshcheniye Publishing House. The project is of a research and exploratory nature and does not pretend to develop a new model for teacher certification.
3) the development of the concept, model of level assessment of teachers and its testing is carried out by the team of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. A.I. Herzen.
4) to date, training webinars have been held with regional coordinators (they will organize the process in the regions), regional experts (they will evaluate the work of teachers). A personal account has been opened for each participating teacher and regional experts on the ABBYY Monitoring technology platform. The personal results of teachers’ participation in testing behavior are not subject to disclosure and will not be available to either school directors or educational authorities. Only general results will be analyzed.

5) From September 11 to 14, teachers fill out questionnaires in personal accounts. This information is necessary to carry out further analysis testing results.

6) On September 14 and 15, according to a separate schedule, 40 teachers (20 Russian language teachers and 20 mathematics teachers) will conduct open online lessons.
From September 16 to 29, 200 participating teachers will record video clips of lessons and post them for expert evaluation in their personal accounts.

7) From September 14 to 23, participating teachers will complete a professional task.

8) On September 25-27, all participating teachers (more than 4000) will perform diagnostic work, which consists of subject and methodological tasks).

9) Regional experts will check everything by October 3. The verification will take place in the personal accounts of experts not on the ABBYY monitoring technology platform. This will allow teachers’ work to be transmitted over the Internet for verification by experts from other regions. Evaluation criteria were also developed by the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. A.I. Herzen.
________________________________________
reference Information
On the website of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. A.I. Herzen also received information about changes related to the testing of level assessment of competencies of teachers of the Russian language and mathematics - a modified schedule and instructions for testing were publishedtesting. Read more here.
Previously, we published demo versions of diagnostic work for mathematics teachers and Russian language teachers, as well as a demo version of a professional task.
Maria Kotenyatkina
Source: press service of Rosobrnadzor

OPEN LETTER

The teaching community has become familiar with the model and expresses deep gratitude to you for such attention to the issues of organizing vigilant control of our “competencies” (previously, this, however, was called the professional level, but more on that below). We understand what efforts of will it cost you to forget that a teacher’s qualifications have already been confirmed by a state diploma, and the only system of external control of such – certification – is already provided for by the Law on Education.

We ask you to convey special gratitude to those regional leaders who, with no less effort of will, also managed to force themselves to forget about the Law and still sent their teachers to test this model.

It is impossible not to mention our admiration for the All-Russian Education Trade Union, which Once again, with his characteristic courage, did not draw the attention of the executive power to the violation of the rights of its members and, like a sentinel of honor for something, faithfully looks forward, not daring to utter a word.

But if we nevertheless discard such a trifle as the rights and freedoms of a teacher guaranteed by the Law on Education and other Laws, as well as our state diplomas, which today increasingly carry the semantic load of a fig leaf, then it should immediately be noted that the testing period was chosen simply ideally! There could be no better time to test a teacher! After all, it is in September that our teachers suffer from idleness and melancholy, walk from corner to corner of their offices and do not know what to do. Yes Yes! They have absolutely nothing to do! Well, if you don’t count such little things as: getting textbooks and manuals from the library and giving them textbooks and manuals to the youth, bringing the same youths into working condition after a long vacation; introduction of a new schedule and its “grinding in” to the offices; parent meetings; filling out logs; delivery of plans and programs; preparation of statistical reports; instructive and methodological meetings, methodological associations; receptions and receptions of sanitary epidemiologists, fire inspectors, medical workers, representatives of the traffic police and other “dear” guests; holding health days, tourist events, layout of plans for extracurricular activities; registration of contracts for the provision of additional services, supervision services, care services, social and ped services. support, mental health services. diagnostics and again for support, and other tertiary (today) little things, such as: conducting lessons and preparing for them, checking assignments, class manuals and being on duty during breaks...

And this is where it’s time for the teacher to take care of filming twenty (!!!) lessons and passing all kinds of verification work. Naturally, we will act according to the principle: between work and checking, we always choose the latter. We are, of course, used to it, but you know, it’s one thing to be checked, and quite another to be “evaluated”...

In general, such invaluable experience in wholesale “valuation” should not remain within one system. It needs to be replicated urgently! Why are some teachers so happy? Moreover, since its authors are from the Russian State University named after. Herzen argues, neither more nor less, but that: “THE FRAMEWORK LIST OF COMPETENCIES IS SUFFICIENTLY HOMOGENEOUS FOR ANY PROFESSION”... Then we need to invite the Ministry of Finance to check the bankers and sift through the “office plankton.” The Ministry of Health urgently needs to “assess” the competencies of doctors - after which the latter will definitely begin to cut deeper and faster, and write prescriptions right on the cloakroom counters. The Ministry of Culture can urgently send all writers to assess their writing competencies. Can you imagine how they will record it after this? In no way can we forget about theater, film and circus artists - these in the first place. Straight from the costumes (possibly with decorations) and straight from the September premieres. Circus performers along with bears and tigers. If the animals become stubborn or get sick, call us - we’ll replace them and play along. We are no strangers to this. After we were publicly whipped on the cheeks voluntarily - by forced passing of the Unified State Examination, a couple or three blows with a whip, we feel like a mosquito bite... We also ask you not to forget about engineers, housing and communal services employees and other professional communities.

However, if we recognized the idea and timing of testing the model as very successful, it’s time to consider the model itself, proposed to us by the team of authors, under the leadership of the director of the Institute of Pedagogy of the Russian State University named after. Herzen S.A. Pisareva.

To say that after reading the document we are in admiration is an understatement! We are literally crushed by the depth and courage of the authors' scientific thought. Such an abundance of “scientific” discoveries in different directions science, so “clearly” stated in several printed sheets, makes this document unprecedented both in content and in the form of presentation. And the conclusions made by the team of authors change our understanding not only of pedagogical science, but also about the education system as a whole... For example, we did not even suspect that in the scientific and methodological work called: “Model for level assessment of teacher competencies and its testing in 2017” it is not at all necessary to follow the rules of the Russian language! Now it turns out title page You don’t have to decline the name of the institution: "...department of teaching methods of mathematics and computer science." It can express such vague thoughts, even without using a subject in the sentence: “When completing the first part of the diagnostic work with a result below 13 points, it becomes possible to conclude that the level is insufficient for teaching the corresponding subject in educational institution and the need for advanced training in the direction of subject training and basic methodological training" Apparently the authors still believe that the teachers are smart and will be able to figure out what they were trying to convey. We are, of course, flattered, but, to be honest, we didn’t understand everything... The third part of the demo - the professional task - is presented in such language that it is not possible to understand anything at all: “ Ethical Standards and/or rights that may be violated that prevent the proposed action"; "A question to which you need to find answers to find a solution to the problem." Developing " step by step instructions“, the authors clearly “stepped” into a direction unknown to themselves and got completely lost...

Hmmm... Everything is clear to us with the Russian language - at the Russian State University named after. He is clearly not in Herzen’s honor. And what is noteworthy is that it was under the acting rector of the university, who is: Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Russkiy Mir Foundation, member of the Bureau of the Society of Russian Literature, member of the Council for the Culture of Speech under the Governor of St. Petersburg and many others public associations, designed to protect this very language...

In general, the text of the model can be considered quite balanced, since its content is quite adequate to the level of language proficiency... Therefore, the theses, definitions, and conclusions of the authors must be dealt with separately and in a very substantive manner. Perhaps nowhere and never before has an orgy of anti-scientific madness and academic ignorance unfolded with such ease and unrestraint. Let's start with the fact that the authors confuse the concepts of “competency” and “competence”. The concept of “competence” describes what you need to be able to do to perform high-quality work in the field in question (the body of knowledge, skills and abilities) - synonyms: qualifications, professionalism. The concept of “competence” means the right to make decisions in the area under consideration, authority, competence (a set of labor rights and responsibilities). Surprisingly, in Russian language dictionaries these terms have long been conceptually separated and defined! Should we throw away all academic dictionaries?..

Now let’s take the authors’ first fundamental definition:

- “Under the competence of the in general terms is understood as a set of interrelated personality qualities (knowledge, abilities, skills, methods of activity), specified in relation to a certain range of objects and processes and necessary for high-quality productive activity in relation to them”...

1. Definitions are not given “in general terms”, much less “in terms of themselves”. And it is absolutely inconvenient to remind authors that before giving a phenomenon (concept) its definition, scientific world It is customary to refute the previous one and justify the new one with arguments...
2. “Personality quality” - significantly more complex concept, how the authors interpret it. But it is clearly not enough. After all, it is defined as: “stable internal characteristics of a person, assessed positively. These are positive character traits, knowledge, skills and abilities.” At the same time, the authors of the “model” are not aware of the existence of a broader category: personality traits, which include both positive and other personality traits.” But we won’t consider the negative traits? Can a teacher be irritable, angry, stupid, etc.?
3. A “mode of activity” does not have to be “interdependent” with anything else. The method is not a constant value at all. It changes from action to action and is determined by goal setting, the available set of tools and many other factors. And even in one (complex) action many methods can be applied. And, as we found out earlier, it has nothing to do with “personality quality”.
4. In general, why and where did a certain “way of activity” come from? Perhaps, after all, “activity has not a method, but a type? Although it’s clear why not “view”. If they had written it, the rampant stupidity would have been even more obvious...
5. “...high-quality productive activity in relation to them” (...) Excuse me, to whom or to what?! To objects and processes?
6. In general, it is mainly neurotics and schizophrenics who have an “attitude to objects and processes”...

Dear authors, we are not against it, but please clarify, what are you going to “evaluate” with us? After all, if still "competencies" then this is not at all for us, but for those who installed them - employers. And if “competence” (qualification and professionalism), but without certification?.. Then it would be logical to first take away our diplomas and, of course, cancel the results of those certifications that we have already passed earlier... Really, is it worth the rush? Or maybe it’s not us who should be taken away at all? And not only diplomas, but also scientific titles and positions? After all, if you look at what you write next, it will become clear who needs to be checked for professionalism (competence), and based on the results of the check, they should be urgently deprived of the previously so recklessly granted positions and the corresponding competencies...

After all, wanting to “evaluate” the teacher, you say: “The office where you work has the necessary equipment in accordance with the Federal State Standards for General Education.” And it would be good if the Federal State Educational Standard had at least one section devoted to the issues of provision of teaching aids. However, he is not and never was. And this tells us that the authors of a certain “evaluation model” themselves never fully read the Federal State Educational Standard...

Asking the question: " What elements of the subject environment and how will you
use when conducting a general lesson in two different classes (for example, 5 and 10)? How will these lessons be different? You prove to us that you don’t know either the methodology or the sample programs! A mathematics lesson in the fifth grade differs from a lesson in the tenth primarily in that in the latter there is no mathematics, but there is algebra, the beginnings of mathematical analysis and geometry... And the general lessons there (as well as lessons in general) are quantities of completely different methodological orders, not subject to professional comparative characteristics!

But you not only know little and have a very vague idea of ​​education, but you also provoke us: “Indicate what ethical and legal norms professional activity teachers may be violated in the process of implementing your decision.” Sorry, but why do we need to develop solutions that violate any norms?

The apogee of either madness and complete irresponsibility, or a manifestation of outright rudeness towards the teacher, was the desire of the authors to see 20 (twenty!!!) filmed lessons of each “evaluated” teacher. Not to mention what titanic work it will cost the teacher. You should immediately ask the authors: “How? How will you, dear “appraisers,” look at and analyze all this?” After all, no institute or methodological service in the country has such a resource! But collecting such material, created by the incredible work of the teacher, and knowingly dumping it on a shelf is precisely rudeness!

And the very idea of ​​testing a teacher’s qualifications using a pre-filmed lesson seems, to put it mildly, dubious. Shooting good lesson useful for replicating the methodology and experience. And such a check is equal to a recovery attempt historical painting By feature films. So what do the authors of the “method” want to see? Real picture, or a set of beautifully choreographed “stunts” chosen from the most successful take? Or do the authors believe that one of the teachers will allow themselves to film and send a low-quality recording?

If you carefully examine the tasks set out in the demo versions of the “diagnostic work”, you can easily notice that half of them are nothing else (?) as "creatively redesigned" CMMs from Unified State Exam materials(albeit in some places somewhat spoiled by errors and incorrectly posed questions and assignments) ... And the second part, as if devoted to testing the teacher’s methodological level, is a humiliatingly flat two-dimensional imitation of revealing the vague knowledge and skills of a teacher student. University. In general, determining a teacher’s methodological level in a test mode is obviously a stupid and offensive task for him. But the main thing is obviously worthless. Thus, we can only state that teachers are tested not for professional growth, but for their knowledge acquired at school and university. But then what are we cultivating? professional growth or degradation? One gets the impression that the authors deliberately set themselves the task of completely burning out the academic approach and creative component from the teacher and returning the system to medieval scholasticism.

But even this would be relatively tolerable if not for the following “discovery” of the authors, which turns the entire proposed “model” into complete nonsense: “Competencies are formed and manifested in the process of solving life and professional tasks different levels complexity”... But then, following this “greatest of discoveries”, there is no need to teach anyone anything at all - everything will form itself and everyone will learn everything themselves! But then we close schools and universities, we quietly go home, and Olga Yuryevna is preparing an order to stop the activities of the entire education system?

But, Olga Yuryevna, something tells us that without you and me, with some independently regulated process of “formation in the process of life and professional decisions,” it will not work out very well. More precisely, it will be very bad. And into this “totally bad” place we are driven by ideas about stormy “evaluations” of something, supported by openly anti-scientific delights. The authors simply played with science and methodology, not only knowing neither one nor the other, but also scientific ethics and culture itself. This work is worthy of the pen of a arrogant freshman, but not the director of the Institute of Pedagogy and the head of the department of methodology at one of the largest pedagogical universities.

Only one thing remains unclear. On what planets do people live who believe that individual total control of everything will solve the problems of the quality of education? On what planets do people live who believe that “competence” and “competence” mean the same thing and are allowed to endlessly defame scientific concepts and torment their native language? These are probably pleasant planets to live in, and we are generally happy for their inhabitants. But we still live on a different one. And we don’t understand why those from planets alien to us consider us a stupid, soulless, uncomplaining cog of a substance they invented.

Dear Olga Yurievna!

Please order your subordinates to think at least a little. Think before you speak, and even more so, think before you do something. Instruct them to read a lot first before writing anything. Command them to see and respect us, the teachers and the children who sit in our classrooms. We hope that they will listen to you. It would also be very nice to make them learn and realize that it is not us for them, but they must exist and act for us. This is expressed in one phrase: “People engaged in teaching work do not need advice, but conditions.”

And then, only after this, our planets, if not completely unite, will at least enter the same orbit.

Welcome to the website of the Education Standards magazine. Receive magazine news by mail! . Thank you for your visit!

We are publishing an Open letter related to the assessment of teachers’ competencies to the Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation O.Yu. Vasilyeva, head of Rosobrnadzor S.S. Kravtsov and others. Join the Open Letter.

Let us recall that during the Interregional Conference on Assessing the Quality of Education “Development of a Unified System for Assessing the Quality of Education - Experience and Prospects,” which took place in Sochi on July 4-5, 2017, the director of the Institute of Pedagogy, Svetlana Anatolyevna Pisareva, and the head of the department of teaching methods of mathematics and computer science, Victoria Igorevna Snegurova was offered.

In an interview with the correspondent of the “Social Navigator” project MIA “Russia Today”, the head of Rosobrnadzor Sergey Kravtsov reported that the testing will take place in mid-September, and the procedure will include an open video lesson, which will be assessed by federal and regional experts according to pre-developed criteria.

Open letter

To the Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Vasilyeva O.Yu.

To the head Federal service for supervision in the field of education and science

Kravtsov S.S.

To the Chairman of the All-Russian

trade union of education

Merkulova G.I.

And about. Rector of Russian State University named after. A.I. Herzen

Bogdanov S.I.

OPEN LETTER

Dear ideologists and authors of the model for level assessment of teacher competencies!

The teaching community has become familiar with the model and expresses deep gratitude to you for such attention to the issues of organizing vigilant control of our “competencies” (previously, this, however, was called the professional level, but more on that below). We understand what efforts of will it cost you to forget that the teacher’s qualifications have already been confirmed by a state diploma, and the only system of external control over such – certification – is already provided for by the law “On Education in the Russian Federation”.

We ask you to convey special gratitude to those regional leaders who, with no less effort of will, also managed to force themselves to forget about the Law and still sent their teachers to test this model.

It is impossible not to say about admiration for the All-Russian Trade Union of Education, which once again, with its characteristic courage, did not draw the attention of the executive branch to the violation of the rights of its members and, like a sentinel of honor for something, faithfully looks forward, not daring to utter a word.

But if we nevertheless discard such a trifle as the rights and freedoms of the teacher, guaranteed by the law “On Education” and other laws, as well as our state diplomas, which today increasingly carry the semantic load of a fig leaf, then it should immediately be noted that the approbation period was chosen simply perfect! There could be no better time to test a teacher! After all, it is in September that our teachers suffer from idleness and melancholy, walk from corner to corner of their offices and do not know what to do. Yes Yes! They have absolutely nothing to do! Well, if you don’t count such little things as getting textbooks and manuals from the library and issuing textbooks and manuals to the youths, bringing the same youths into working order after a long holiday, introducing a new schedule and “grinding it in” to the classrooms, parent meetings, filling out magazines, submitting plans and programs, preparation of statistical reports, instructional and methodological meetings, methodological associations, receptions and receptions of sanitary epidemiologists, fire inspectors, medical workers, representatives of the traffic police and other “dear” guests, holding health days, tourist events, layout of plans for extracurricular activities, execution of contracts for the provision of additional services, services supervision, care services, social services. support, mental health services. diagnostics and again for support, and other tertiary (today) little things, such as: teaching and preparing for lessons, checking assignments, class management and being on duty during breaks...

And this is the perfect time for a teacher to worry about filming twenty (!!!) lessons and passing all sorts of tests. Naturally, we will act according to the principle: between work and inspection, we always choose the latter. We are, of course, used to it, but you know: it’s one thing to be checked, and quite another to be “evaluated”...

In general, such invaluable experience in wholesale “valuation” should not remain within one system. It needs to be replicated urgently! Why are some teachers so happy? Moreover, its authors are from the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. Herzen argue that: “THE FRAMEWORK LIST OF COMPETENCIES IS SUFFICIENTLY HOMOGENEOUS FOR ANY PROFESSION”... Then we need to invite the Ministry of Finance to check the bankers and sift through the “office plankton.” The Ministry of Health urgently needs to “assess” the competencies of doctors - after which the latter will definitely start cutting deeper and faster, and writing prescriptions right on the wardrobe counters. The Ministry of Culture can urgently send all writers to assess their writing competencies. Can you imagine how they will record it after this? In no way can we forget about theater, film and circus artists - these in the first place. Straight from the costumes (possibly with decorations) and straight from the September premieres. Circus performers along with bears and tigers. If the animals become stubborn or get sick, call us - we’ll replace them and play along. We are no strangers to this. After we were publicly whipped on the cheeks voluntarily - by forced passing of the Unified State Examination, a couple or three blows of a whip to us - like a mosquito bite... We also ask you not to forget about engineers, housing and communal services employees and other professional communities.

However, if we recognized the idea and timing of testing the model as very successful, it’s time to consider the model itself, proposed to us by the team of authors under the leadership of the director of the Institute of Pedagogy of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. Herzen S.A. Pisareva.

To say that after reading the document we are in admiration is an understatement! We are literally crushed by the depth and courage of the authors' scientific thought. Such an abundance of “scientific” discoveries in different areas of science, so “clearly” presented on several printed sheets, makes this document unprecedented both in content and in the form of presentation. And the conclusions made by the team of authors change our understanding not only of pedagogical science, but also of the education system as a whole... For example, we did not even suspect that in the scientific and methodological work called “Model of level assessment of teachers’ competencies and its testing in 2017”, it is absolutely not necessary to follow the rules of the Russian language! Now, it turns out, you don’t have to decline the name of the institution on the title page: "...department of teaching methods of mathematics and computer science." You can express vague thoughts in it, without using the subject in the sentence: “ When completing the first part of the diagnostic work with a result below 13 points, it becomes possible to conclude that the level is insufficient for teaching the relevant subject in an educational institution and the need for advanced training in the direction of subject training and basic methodological training.”. Apparently, the authors still believe that the teachers are smart and will be able to figure out what they were trying to convey. We are, of course, flattered, but, to be honest, we didn’t understand everything... The third part of the demo - a professional task - is presented in such language that it is not possible to understand anything at all: "Ethical standards and/or rights that may be violated that prevent the proposed action"; "A question to which you need to find answers to find a solution to the problem". While developing the “step-by-step instructions”, the authors clearly “stepped” into a direction unknown to them and got completely lost...

Hmmm... We understand everything with the Russian language - at the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. He is clearly not in Herzen’s honor. And what is noteworthy is that it was under the acting the rector of the university, who is the deputy chairman of the board of the Russkiy Mir Foundation, a member of the Bureau of the Society of Russian Literature, a member of the Council for the Culture of Speech under the Governor of St. Petersburg and many other public associations designed to protect this very language...

In general, the text of the model can be considered quite balanced, since its content is quite adequate to the level of language proficiency... Therefore, the theses, definitions and conclusions of the authors must be dealt with separately and in a very substantive manner. Perhaps nowhere else has an orgy of anti-scientific madness and academic ignorance unfolded with such ease and uncontrollability. Let's start with the fact that the authors confuse the concepts of “competency” and “competence”. The concept of “competence” describes what you need to be able to do to perform high-quality work in the field in question (the body of knowledge, skills and abilities) - synonyms: qualifications, professionalism. The concept of “competence” means the right to make decisions in the area under consideration, authority, competence (a set of labor rights and obligations). Surprisingly, in Russian language dictionaries these terms have long been conceptually separated and defined! Should we throw away all academic dictionaries?..

Now let’s take the authors’ first fundamental definition:

— “Competence in the most general terms is understood as a set of interrelated personality qualities (knowledge, abilities, skills, methods of activity) specified in relation to a certain range of objects and processes and necessary for high-quality productive activity in relation to them”…

1. Definitions are not given “in general terms”, much less “in terms of themselves”. And it is completely inconvenient to remind the authors that before giving a phenomenon (concept) its definition, in the scientific world it is customary to refute the previous one and justify the new one with arguments...
2. “Personality quality” is a much more complex concept than the authors interpret it. But it is clearly not enough. After all, it is defined as “stable internal characteristics of a person, assessed positively. These are positive character traits, knowledge, skills and abilities.”. At the same time, the authors of the “model” are not aware of the existence of a broader category: personality traits, which include both positive and other personality traits. But we won’t consider the negative traits? Can a teacher be irritable, angry, stupid, etc.?
3. A “mode of activity” does not have to be “interdependent” with anything else. The method is not a constant value at all. It changes from action to action and is determined by goal setting, the available set of tools and many other factors. And even in one (complex) action many methods can be applied. And, as we found out earlier, it has nothing to do with “personality quality”.
4. In general, why and where did a certain “way of activity” come from? Perhaps, after all, “activity has not a method, but a type? Although it’s clear why not “view”. If they had written it, the rampant stupidity would have been even more obvious...
5. “...high-quality productive activity in relation to them” (...) Excuse me, to whom or to what?! To objects and processes?
6. In general, it is mainly neurotics and schizophrenics who have an “attitude to objects and processes”...

Dear authors, we are not against it, but please clarify, what are you going to “evaluate” with us? After all, if still "competencies" then this is not at all for us, but for those who installed them - employers. And if “competence” (qualification and professionalism), then outside of certification?.. Then it would be logical to first take away our diplomas and, of course, cancel the results of those certifications that we have already passed earlier... Really, is it worth the rush? Or maybe it’s not us who should be taken away at all? And not only diplomas, but also scientific titles and positions? After all, if you look at what you write next, it will become clear who needs to be checked for professionalism (competence), and based on the results of the check, they should be urgently deprived of the previously so recklessly granted positions and the corresponding competencies...

After all, wanting to “evaluate” the teacher, you say: “The office where you work has the necessary equipment in accordance with the Federal State Standards for General Education.” And it would be good if the Federal State Educational Standard had at least one section devoted to the issues of provision of teaching aids. However, he is not and never was. And this tells us that the authors of a certain “evaluation model” themselves never fully read the Federal State Educational Standard...

Asking the question " What elements of the subject environment and how will you
use when conducting a general lesson in two different classes (for example, 5 and 10)? How will these lessons be different? You prove to us that you don’t know either the methodology or the sample programs! A mathematics lesson in the fifth grade differs from a lesson in the tenth primarily in that in the latter there is no mathematics, but there is algebra, the beginnings of mathematical analysis and geometry... And the general lessons there (as well as lessons in general) are quantities of completely different methodological orders, not subject to professional comparative characteristics!

But you not only know little and have a very vague idea of ​​education, but you also provoke us: “Indicate which ethical and legal norms of a teacher’s professional activity may be violated in the process of implementing your decision.” Sorry, but why do we need to develop solutions that violate any norms?

The apogee of either madness and complete irresponsibility, or a manifestation of outright rudeness towards the teacher, was the desire of the authors to see 20 (twenty!!!) filmed lessons of each “evaluated” teacher. Not to mention what titanic work it will cost the teacher. You should immediately ask the authors: “How? How will you, dear “appraisers,” look at and analyze all this?” After all, no institute or methodological service in the country has such a resource! But collecting such material, created by the incredible work of the teacher, and knowingly dumping it on a shelf is precisely rudeness!

And the very idea of ​​testing a teacher’s qualifications using a pre-filmed lesson seems, to put it mildly, dubious. Filming a good lesson is useful for replicating the methodology and experience. And such a check is equivalent to an attempt to restore a historical picture from feature films. So what do the authors of the “method” want to see? A real picture or a set of beautifully choreographed “tricks” chosen from the most successful take? Or do the authors believe that one of the teachers will allow themselves to film and send a low-quality recording?

If you carefully examine the tasks set out in the demo versions of the “diagnostic work”, you can easily notice that half of them are nothing more than “creatively reworked” CMMs from Unified State Exam materials (albeit, in some places somewhat spoiled by errors and incorrectly posed questions and tasks )… And the second part, as if dedicated to testing the teacher’s methodological level, is a humiliatingly flat-two-dimensional imitation of identifying the vague knowledge and skills of a teacher training university student. In general, determining a teacher’s methodological level in a test mode is obviously a stupid and offensive task for him. But the main thing is obviously worthless. Thus, we can only state that teachers are tested not for professional growth, but for their knowledge acquired at school and university. But then what are we cultivating – professional growth or degradation? One gets the impression that the authors deliberately set themselves the task of completely burning out the academic approach and creative component from the teacher and returning the system to medieval scholasticism.

But even this would be relatively tolerable if not for the following “discovery” of the authors, which turns the entire proposed “model” into complete nonsense: “Competencies are formed and manifested in the process of solving life and professional problems of varying levels of complexity...” But then, following this “greatest of discoveries,” there is no need to teach anyone anything at all - everything will form itself and everyone will learn everything themselves! But then we close schools and universities, we quietly go home, and Olga Yuryevna is preparing an order to stop the activities of the entire education system?

But, Olga Yuryevna, something tells us that without you and me, with some independently regulated process of “formation in the process of life and professional decisions,” it will not work out very well. More precisely, it will be very bad. And into this “totally bad” place we are driven by ideas about stormy “evaluations” of something, supported by openly anti-scientific delights. The authors simply played with science and methodology, not only knowing neither one nor the other, but also scientific ethics and culture itself. This work is worthy of the pen of a arrogant freshman, but not the director of the Institute of Pedagogy and the head of the department of methodology at one of the largest pedagogical universities.

Only one thing remains unclear. On what planets do people live who believe that individual total control of everything will solve the problems of the quality of education? On what planets do people live who believe that “competence” and “competence” mean the same thing and are allowed to endlessly defame scientific concepts and torment their native language? These are probably pleasant planets to live in, and we are generally happy for their inhabitants. But we still live on a different one. And we don’t understand why those from planets alien to us consider us a stupid, soulless, uncomplaining cog of a substance they invented.

Dear Olga Yurievna!

Please order your subordinates to think at least a little. Think before you speak, and even more so, think before you do something. Instruct them to read a lot first before writing anything. Command them to see and respect us, the teachers and the children who sit in our classrooms. We hope that they will listen to you. It would also be very nice to make them learn and realize that it is not us for them, but they must exist and act for us. This is expressed in one phrase: “People engaged in teaching work do not need advice, but conditions.”

And then, only after this, our planets, if not completely united, will at least enter the same orbit.