Is the native language compulsory in school? The study of national languages in schools should be compulsory. Everyone is unhappy with the compromise option

Rosobrnadzor will extend checks in Tatarstan schools to ensure voluntary learning Tatar language. As my parents found out, the auditors will stay with us until the end of October. Meanwhile, schools, fulfilling prosecutorial orders, are conducting parent meetings. Their task is to familiarize fathers and mothers with the curriculum options and jointly choose the option that satisfies everyone. Yesterday, a correspondent for "Evening Kazan" attended one of these meetings - for parents of ninth-graders in Kazan gymnasium No. 19.

At 18.30 the assembly hall was half full. The mothers of the students, sitting next to the author of these lines, were animatedly whispering: “And why do we need this Tatar? My child will still go to school in Moscow,” one was indignant. “Yes, let this Tatar stay,” another waved her hand. - If only after the ninth we weren’t thrown out of the gymnasium. The head teacher said that there would only be three tenths of the class. Classes A and B will transfer in full force. And from ours, a few people will take everything..."

Deputy Director Artur Galiakhmetov came to the microphone and immediately got down to business.

The curriculum, in accordance with the Law on Education, is adopted by the school itself. That is, no one but us... Why did we call you? Today we will introduce you to the curriculum. Due to the changes that have occurred. Look, the Tatar language has disappeared from the curriculum,” he pointed to a slide on the screen that was difficult to read in the lighted hall. - But it came under a different name - “Native Language”. Why? Because in federal educational standards there is no concept of “Tatar language” - there is the concept of “native language”... By the way, Article 14 of the law states that regions have the right to introduce their state languages in educational institutions. In Tatarstan it is Russian and Tatar.

For some, he may be Chuvash, Udmurt, Turkish, Chinese, for others, perhaps, Russian,” the deputy director paused. - But according to the Federal State Educational Standard, Russian cannot be a native language. Please note that our Russian language and literature lessons have not changed in number.

If Russian cannot be a native language and it is already in the program, then why are we here? - the respectable-looking father asked from the hall.

And if my child’s native language is Chinese, will you give him the opportunity to learn Chinese alone? - another dad asked a question.

There should be a statement: “I agree/disagree on the Tatar language,” and you are talking about “native language” to us! - a group of mothers from the front rows was indignant. The hall began to buzz.

“It’s not just us who are working on this statement, all the schools,” the deputy director tried to lower the temperature.

Not true! Other schools offer a choice of four curriculum options, parents objected.

Parents, let's not make noise. This is not a bazaar, this is a school,” Galiakhmetov called for order. - I’ll explain: we need this statement to lead educational activities. I don’t force you to write “Tatar language” or “Russian” - you can write any language. In any case, the majority chooses the language we talked about - Tatar. Those children who choose other languages, we will look for options based on them. Until now, we have not yet been given a universal solution from above regarding those who choose something other than Tatar, do you understand? Please choose Russian - no problem. But there will be no Russian in its pure form.

There was deathly silence: the parents tried to comprehend what was said.

If we select Tatar, testing will be saved ( unified republican testing in the Tatar language for ninth graders. - "VC")? - one of the mothers asked cautiously.

Testing is not a pass to the OGE, the assessment does not go into the certificate. “No problem,” a representative of the school authorities cheerfully assured from the podium.

But it affects overall academic performance,” the respectable-looking father noted skeptically.

Since the situation has changed, perhaps there will also be changes in the ERT, the decision of the Ministry of Education has not yet been made... Just write applications... And we will have Tatar, just in a soft form,” Arthur Galiakhmetov sighed tiredly.

Please show me the curriculum,” the parents did not give up.

Here the director of the 19th gymnasium Andrei Talmanov came to the fore and with the experienced hand of the manager ( before heading the gymnasium in 2016, he served as deputy chief of staff of the Kazan executive committee. - "VC") turned the parent's thought in a different direction. The director reminded parents that they had chosen for their children “an advanced educational institution that is among the top 200 best schools in Russia.”

Therefore, we have our own, individual curriculum, not the first, not the second and not the third. I'm telling you this for sure. Our professors work with children... Dear parents, now you need to think not about reducing the load of the Tatar language... My dears, you need to think in general about children’s academic performance, career guidance, about the tenth grade. You know the situation in the gymnasium very well. We have one and a half thousand students, the gymnasium has a capacity of 900 people. “I can make a “baldo-buldo” only at your expense,” Andrei Talmanov smiled at his parents in a Hollywood way.

Then he turned to those fathers and mothers who were inclined to choose their native Russian: they say, teachers of Russian studies in the gymnasium are already overloaded - on average there are 30 hours per teacher. And if we hypothetically imagine that 132 hours of Tatar will need to be replaced by Russian, then he, “like the directors of another two thousand schools in the republic,” will have to search hard during the day for Russian language teachers.

At this point, the director closed the meeting, inviting parents to go to the classrooms and fill out the application forms that were distributed.

However, not everyone went to class. Some of the parents headed to the exit and began discussing on the street whether it was worth signing something. Some panicked, crushed by the need to choose, others joked: “We need to write “Japanese”. Let them provide it." It’s pointless to write “Russian”; they will still say that there are not enough teachers, but there are unemployed Tatar teachers.” “Whatever we write will be Tatar,” the same respectable-looking father concluded from everything that happened.

Meanwhile, the leadership of gymnasium No. 7 and the parents of students showed rare unanimity in Bugulma. At a school-wide meeting on October 23, they chose curriculum No. 2, designed for six days, according to which parents can themselves formulate a variable part of the educational program. “We chose English, biology, local history and project activities. These are compulsory subjects for which grades will be given,” Nadezhda Ushanova, the mother of a 6th grade student, told Vechernaya Kazan. “In our class, no one wanted to study their native language (Tatar), but several people wrote applications for the optional Tatar language, and not only Tatars.” According to the parent, parents and the gymnasium administration came to this consensus after heated discussions and months of correspondence with supervisory authorities. The director of the gymnasium, Anatoly Shalev, who has already been dubbed a hero of new times on social networks, refused to comment.

Let us remind you that now many schools in Tatarstan have curriculum No. 3, which provides three hours of that very “native language” with grades in the diary.

Methodical letter

About teaching academic subject“Russian (native) language” in the conditions

introduction of the federal component of the state standard

general education

I. State standard of general education and its purpose

State standard of general education– norms and requirements that determine the mandatory minimum content of basic educational programs of general education, the maximum volume of students’ teaching load, the level of training of graduates of educational institutions, as well as the basic requirements for ensuring the educational process.

The purpose of the state standard of general education is security equal opportunities for all citizens to receive quality education; unity of the educational space in the Russian Federation; protecting students from overload and maintaining their mental and physical health; continuity of educational programs at different levels of general education, opportunities for obtaining vocational education; social protection of students; social and professional security teaching staff; the rights of citizens to receive complete and reliable information about state standards and requirements for the content of general education and the level of training of graduates of educational institutions; basis for calculating federal standards financial costs for the provision of services in the field of general education, as well as to distinguish between educational services in the field of general education, financed from the budget and from consumer funds, and to determine the requirements for educational institutions that implement the state standard of general education.

The state guarantees public availability and free general education in educational institutions within the limits determined by the state standard of general education.

State standard of general education is the basis development of the federal basic curriculum, educational programs of primary general, basic general and secondary (complete) general education, basic curricula of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, curricula of educational institutions, model programs in academic subjects; objective assessment of the level of training of graduates of educational institutions; objective assessment of the activities of educational institutions; determining the volume of budget funding for educational services, the provision of which to citizens free of charge is guaranteed by the state throughout the Russian Federation; establishing the equivalence (nostrification) of documents on general education on the territory of the Russian Federation; establishing federal requirements for educational institutions in terms of equipment for the educational process and equipment for classrooms.

The state standard of general education includes three components: federal component, regional (national-regional) component and educational institution component.

Federal component of the state standard of general education developed in accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation “On Education” (Article 7) and the Concept of modernization of Russian education for the period until 2010, approved by order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 01.01.01; approved by the decision of the board of the Ministry of Education of Russia and the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Education dated 01.01.01 No. 21/12; approved by order of the Ministry of Education of Russia “On approval of the federal component of state standards of primary general, basic general and secondary (complete) general education” dated March 5, 2004 No. 000 and posted on the website of the Ministry of Education of Russia www. ed. gov. ru.

The federal component of the state standard of general education was developed taking into account the main directions modernization of general education. In accordance with the modernization strategy, it is built as a means of developing domestic education and systematically updating its content.

Federal component – the main part of the state standard of general education , mandatory for all state, municipal and non-state educational institutions of the Russian Federation that implement basic educational programs of general education and have state accreditation. He sets mandatory minimum content of basic educational programs, requirements for the level of training of graduates, the maximum volume of students' teaching load, as well as study time standards.

Federal component structured by levels of general education (primary general, basic general, secondary (complete) general education); within levels - by academic subjects.

The general focus of the Russian (native) language course on the synthesis of speech, intellectual and spiritual development creates conditions for improving speech-thinking abilities that ensure information and communication activities: targeted search for information in sources of various types, critical assessment of its reliability adequate to the goal; a detailed substantiation of your position with a system of arguments; meaningful choice of reading type; text evaluation and editing; mastery of basic types public speaking(statements, monologue, discussion, controversy), following ethical standards and rules of dialogue (dispute), etc.

X. The relationship between the content of standards, sample and work programs

Sample programs in Russian (native) language for basic general education, secondary (complete) general education at basic level and secondary (complete) general education at the profile level are compiled on the basis of the federal component of the state standard of general education. Sample programs specify the content of the subject topics of the educational standard and provide an approximate distribution of training hours among the sections of the course.

The sample programs perform two main functions.

Information and methodological function allows all participants in the educational process to gain an understanding of the goals, content, general strategy of teaching, educating and developing students through the means of a given academic subject.

Organizational planning function provides for the identification of stages of training, structuring of educational material, determination of its quantitative and qualitative characteristics at each stage, including for the content of the intermediate certification of students.

Based on the standard of basic general and secondary (complete) education in the Russian (native) language, approximate programs have been compiled that specify and detail the content of the subject topics of the educational standard, give an approximate distribution of training hours across major sections of the course, taking into account interdisciplinary and intrasubject connections, age characteristics of students .

The developed programs are exemplary and serve as a guide for developers of proprietary programs and textbooks. Model programs do not favor any one concept of teaching the Russian language to the detriment of others. On their basis, original programs and textbooks can be created, which will reflect various theories and practical techniques.

The basic principles of organizing educational material, its structuring, the sequence of study and distribution by class are determined in specific author's programs.

X1. Priority directions in the methodology of teaching the Russian (native) language

Updated goals of teaching Russian (native) language, activity-based nature of presenting material in state standard determines the development strategy for the school course of the Russian (native) language and priority areas in his teaching.

The most important conditions for the implementation of the developed standard are:

· activity-based nature of the process of teaching Russian (native) language in basic and high school

· synthesis of speech and intellectual development of the individual in the process of learning the native language;

· formation of communicative competence on a conceptual basis, which contributes to the understanding of one’s own speech practice and the intensive development of speech-thinking abilities;

· development of all types of speech activity in their unity and interconnection;

· balanced development of oral and writing;

· formation of reading skills as a type of speech activity; skills of information processing of text;

· strengthening the speech focus in the study of grammatical topics of the course and on this basis - the formation of skills in the normative, expedient and appropriate use of language means in different conditions communication;

· developing an idea of the multifunctionality of a linguistic phenomenon as a grammatical, communicative and aesthetic phenomenon; development of linguistic flair, the ability to evaluate the aesthetic value of an artistic statement;

· formation of an idea of the native language as a form of expression of the national culture of the people, the national heritage of the Russian people.

Modern achievements of linguistics, psycholinguistics, functional grammar and other branches of linguistics, the accumulated experience of teaching languages creates the prerequisites for the development of variable methodological systems with a pronounced speech focus.

The maximum volume of students' academic workload as a component of the federal component is established in the manner determined by the Government of the Russian Federation. Currently, these standards are determined in accordance with the Sanitary and Epidemiological Rules and Standards (SanPiN 2.4, registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on December 5, 2002, reg. No. 000.

Federal State Educational Standard “Native Language”

General characteristics of the program

An approximate program in the native language for a basic school is compiled on the basis of the Fundamental Core of the Content of General Education and the Requirements for the Results of Basic General Education presented in the Federal State Standard of General Education of the Second Generation. It also takes into account the main ideas and provisions of the program for the development and formation of universal educational activities for basic general education, continuity with exemplary programs of primary general education.

The sample program is a guideline for drawing up work programs: it defines the invariant (mandatory) part of the educational course, outside of which there remains the possibility of the author’s choice of a variable component of the educational content. The authors of work programs and textbooks can offer their own approach to structuring educational material, determining the sequence of its study, expanding the volume (detail) of content, as well as determining ways to form a system of knowledge, skills and methods of activity, development, education and socialization of students. Work programs compiled on the basis of an example program can be used in educational institutions of different types and different specializations.

The sample program for primary school provides for the development of all basic activities of students presented in the sample programs for primary general education. However, the content of the approximate program for a basic school has features determined, firstly, by the subject content of the general secondary education system; secondly, the psychological and age characteristics of the students.

The sample program indicates the goal setting of subject courses for different levels: at the level of meta-subject, subject and personal

goals; at the level of meta-subject, subject and personal educational results (requirements); at the level of educational activities.

The sample program includes four section:

“Explanatory note”, which describes the contribution of the subject to achieving the goals of basic general education; the goals and main results of studying the subject “Native Language” are formulated at several levels - personal, meta-subject and subject-specific, given general characteristics course of the native language, its place in the basic curriculum.
“Main content”, where the content being studied is presented, combined into content blocks.
"Approximate thematic planning", which gives sample list the topics of the course and the number of teaching hours allocated to the study of each topic, the characteristics of the main content of the topics and the main types of student activities (at the level of educational activities) are presented.
“Recommendations for equipping the educational process”, which contain characteristics of the necessary teaching aids and educational equipment that ensure the effectiveness of teaching the Russian (native) language in a modern school.

Contribution of the subject “Native language” to achieving the goals of basic general education

The native language is the native language of each people, the state language of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic; a means of national communication, the basis for the formation of civil identity and tolerance in a multicultural society.

The meta-subject educational functions of the native language determine the universal, generalizing nature of the impact of the subject “Native Language” on the formation of the child’s personality during his education at school. The native language is the basis for the development of thinking, imagination, intellectual and creative abilities of students; the basis for personal self-realization, development of the ability to independently assimilate new knowledge and skills, including organization educational activities. The native language is a means of familiarization with the spiritual wealth of Russian culture and literature, the main channel of socialization of the individual, introducing him to the cultural and historical experience of mankind. Being a form of storage and assimilation of various knowledge, the native language is inextricably linked with all school subjects, affecting the quality of their assimilation, and subsequently the quality of mastering professional skills. The ability to communicate, achieve success in the communication process, high social and professional activity are those personality characteristics that largely determine a person’s achievements in almost all areas of life and contribute to his social adaptation to the changing conditions of the modern world. The native language is the basis for the formation of ethical standards of behavior of a child in different life situations, the development of the ability to give a reasoned assessment of actions from the standpoint of moral standards.

Goals of learning your native language V basic school are:

fostering respect for the native language, a conscious attitude towards it as a cultural phenomenon; understanding the native language as the main means of communication, a means of acquiring knowledge in different areas human activity, a means of mastering moral and ethical standards accepted in society; awareness of the aesthetic value of the native language:
mastering the native language as a means of communication in everyday life and educational activities; development

readiness and ability for verbal interaction and mutual understanding, the need for verbal self-improvement; mastery of the most important general educational skills and universal educational actions (the ability to formulate the goals of activities, plan them, carry out speech self-monitoring and self-correction; conduct bibliographic searches, extract and transform the necessary information from linguistic dictionaries various types and other sources, including the media and the Internet; carry out information processing of text, etc.);

Mastering knowledge about the structure of the language system and the patterns of its functioning, about stylistic resources and the basic norms of the native literary language; developing the ability to recognize, analyze, compare, classify and evaluate linguistic facts; mastery on this basis of the culture of oral and written speech, types of speech activity, rules of language use in different situations communication, norms of speech etiquette; enrichment of active and potential vocabulary; expanding the scope of grammatical means used in speech; improving the ability to apply acquired knowledge and skills in the process of verbal communication in educational activities and everyday life.

General characteristics of the educational subject

The content of the native language course in primary school is determined by the general focus of the educational process on achieving metasubject and subject learning goals, which is possible on the basis of a competency-based approach that ensures the formation and development of communicative, language and linguistic (linguistic) and cultural competencies.

Communicative competence presupposes mastery of types of speech activity and the foundations of the culture of oral and written speech, basic skills and abilities of using language in areas and communication situations that are vital for a given age. Communicative competence is manifested in the ability to determine the goals of communication, assess the speech situation, take into account the intentions and methods of communication of the partner, choose adequate communication strategies, and be prepared to meaningfully change one’s own speech behavior.

Linguistic and linguistic (linguistics) competences are formed on the basis of mastering the necessary knowledge about language as a sign system and social phenomenon, its structure, development and functioning: mastering the basic norms of the native literary language; enriching the vocabulary and grammatical structure of students’ speech; formation of the ability to analyze and evaluate linguistic phenomena and facts, the necessary knowledge about linguistics as a science, its main branches and basic concepts: the ability to use various types of linguistic dictionaries.

Cultural competence presupposes awareness of the native language as a form of expression of national culture, understanding of the relationship between language and the history of the people, the national and cultural specifics of the native language, mastering the norms of speech etiquette and culture interethnic communication; the ability to explain the meanings of words with a national-cultural component,

The sample program implements a communicative-activity approach, which involves presenting the material not only in a knowledge-based, but also in an activity-based form. Each section of the course is presented in two blocks.

The first (under number 1) provides a list of linguistic concepts denoting linguistic and speech phenomena and

features of their functioning. The second (under number 2) lists the main types of educational

activities that are practiced in the process of studying these concepts.

Strengthening the communicative and activity orientation of the Russian (native) language course, its focus on

meta-subject learning outcomes are the most important conditions for the formation of functional

literacy as a person’s ability to adapt as quickly as possible to external environment and active in it

function.

The main indicators of functional literacy, which has a meta-subject status, are: communicative universal learning activities (master all types of speech activity, build productive speech interaction with peers and adults; adequately perceive oral and written speech; accurately, correctly, logically and expressively express one’s point of view on problem posed; in the process of communication, observe the basic norms of oral and written speech and the rules of Russian speech etiquette, etc.): cognitive universal educational actions (formulate a problem, put forward arguments, build a logical chain of reasoning, find evidence confirming or refuting the thesis; carry out bibliographic search, extract the necessary information from various sources; determine basic and secondary information, comprehend the purpose of reading, choosing the type of reading depending on the communicative purpose; apply information retrieval methods, including using computer tools; process, systematize information and present it in different ways, etc.): regulatory universal educational actions (set and adequately formulate the goal of an activity, plan a sequence of actions and, if necessary, change it; carry out self-control, self-assessment, self-correction, etc.). The main components of functional literacy are based on types of speech activity and involve the targeted development of students’ speech-thinking abilities, primarily in the process of learning their native language at school.

The formation of functional literacy and improvement of students’ speech activity is based on knowledge about the structure of the native language and the peculiarities of its use in different communication conditions. The learning process should be focused not only on developing language analysis skills and the ability to classify linguistic phenomena and facts, but also on nurturing speech culture, developing such vital skills as using various types reading, information processing of texts, various shapes information search and different methods of transmission her in accordance with the speech situation and the norms of the literary language and ethical standards of communication. Thus, teaching the native language in primary school should ensure the general cultural level of a person who is able to continue his studies in various educational institutions; in high school full school, in secondary specialized educational institutions.

Main content lines

The focus of the native language course on the formation of communicative, language and linguistic linguistic and cultural competencies is reflected in the structure of the model program. It identifies three cross-cutting content lines that ensure the formation of these competencies:

content that ensures the formation of communicative competence;
content that ensures the formation of linguistic and linguistic (linguistic) competencies;

The first content line is presented in the sample program by sections, the study of which is aimed at the conscious formation of verbal communication skills; "Speech and verbal communication." “Speech activity”, “Text”, “Functional varieties of language”.

The second content line includes sections reflecting the structure of the language and the peculiarities of the functioning of language units: “General information about the language”, “Phonetics and orthoepy”, “Graphics”, “Morphemics and word formation”, “Lexicology and phraseology”, “Morphology”, “Syntax” ", "Culture of speech", "Spelling: spelling and punctuation."

The third line of content is presented in the sample program by the section “Language and Culture”, the study of which will reveal the connection of the language with the history and culture of the people.

In the educational process, these content lines are inextricably interconnected and integrated. When studying each section of the course, students not only receive relevant knowledge and master the necessary skills and abilities, but also improve types of speech activity, develop various communication skills, and also deepen their understanding of their native language as a national-cultural phenomenon. With this approach, the process of understanding the language system and personal experience The use of language in certain communication situations is inextricably linked. That is why the sequence of course sections and the number of hours allocated for studying each of them is approximate.

Results of studying the subject “Native language”

The personal results of mastering the native language program by basic school graduates are:

understanding the native language as one of the main national and cultural values of the people, the determining role of the native language in the development of intellectual, creative abilities and moral qualities of the individual, its importance in the process of obtaining school education;
awareness of the aesthetic value of the native language; respect for the native language, pride in it; the need to preserve the purity of the Russian language as a phenomenon of national culture; desire for speech self-improvement;
a sufficient amount of vocabulary and mastered grammatical means for the free expression of thoughts and feelings in the process of verbal communication; the ability to self-assess based on observation of one’s own speech.

The meta-subject results of mastering the native language program by primary school graduates are:

1) mastery of all types of speech activity:

Listening and reading:

adequate understanding of oral and written communication information (communicative attitude, text topic, main idea; basic and additional information);
mastery of different types of reading (search, browsing, introductory, studying) texts of different styles and genres;
adequate listening comprehension of texts of different styles and genres; mastery of different types of listening (selective, introductory, detailed);
ability to retrieve information from a variety of sources, including tools mass media, educational CDs, Internet resources:
freely use various types of dictionaries, reference books, including those on electronic media;

mastering techniques for selecting and systematizing material on a specific topic; ability to independently search for information; the ability to transform, store and transmit information obtained as a result of reading or listening;
the ability to compare and contrast speech utterances in terms of their content, stylistic features and linguistic means used;

speaking and writing:

the ability to determine the goals of upcoming educational activities (individual and collective), the sequence of actions, evaluate the results achieved and adequately formulate them orally and in writing;
the ability to reproduce a listened or read text with a given degree of condensation (outline, retelling, summary, annotation);
the ability to create oral and written texts of different types, speech styles and genres, taking into account the intent, addressee and communication situation;
the ability to freely and correctly express one’s thoughts orally and in writing, to comply with the norms of text construction (logic, consistency, coherence, relevance to the topic, etc.); adequately express your attitude to the facts and phenomena of the surrounding reality, to what you read, heard, saw;
mastery of various types of monologue (narration, description, reasoning: combination different types monologue) and dialogue (etiquette, dialogue-questioning, dialogue-inspiration, dialogue - exchange of opinions, etc.; a combination of different types of dialogue);
compliance in the practice of speech communication with the basic orthoepic, lexical, grammatical, stylistic norms of the modern native literary language; compliance with the basic rules of spelling and punctuation in the process of written communication;
the ability to participate in verbal communication, observing the norms of speech etiquette; adequately use gestures and facial expressions in the process of verbal communication;
the ability to exercise speech self-control in the process of educational activities and in everyday practice of verbal communication; the ability to evaluate one’s speech in terms of its content and linguistic design; the ability to find grammatical and speech errors, shortcomings, and correct them; improve and edit your own texts;
the ability to speak in front of an audience of peers with short messages, a report, an abstract; participation in disputes and discussions of current topics using various means of argumentation;

application of acquired knowledge, skills and abilities in everyday life; the ability to use the native language as a means of acquiring knowledge in other academic subjects; application of acquired knowledge, skills and abilities in the analysis of linguistic phenomena at the interdisciplinary level (in foreign language lessons, literature, etc.);
communicatively appropriate interaction with other people in the process of verbal communication, joint performance of any task, participation in disputes, discussions of current topics; mastering national and cultural norms of speech behavior in different situations formal and informal interpersonal and intercultural communication.

The substantive results of mastering the native language program by basic school graduates are:

an idea of the main functions of language, the role of the native language as the national language of the people, as the state language of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, the connection between the language and culture of the people, the role of the native language in the life of a person and society;
understanding the place of the native language in the system of humanities and its role in education in general;
mastering the basics of scientific knowledge about the native language; understanding the relationship between its levels and units;
mastering the basic concepts of linguistics: linguistics and its main branches; language and speech, verbal communication, oral and written speech; monologue, dialogue and their types; situation of speech communication; colloquial speech, scientific, journalistic, official business styles, language of fiction; genres of scientific, journalistic, official business styles and colloquial speech; functional-semantic types of speech (narration, description, reasoning); text, types of text; basic units of language, their characteristics and features of use in speech;

mastering the basic stylistic resources of vocabulary and phraseology of the native language, the basic norms of the native literary language (spelling, lexical, grammatical, spelling, punctuation), norms of speech etiquette and using them in one’s speech practice when creating oral and written statements;
recognition and analysis of the basic units of language, grammatical categories of language, the appropriate use of language units is adequate to the situation of speech communication;
carrying out various types of word analysis (phonetic, morphemic, derivational, lexical, morphological), syntactic analysis of phrases and sentences, multidimensional analysis of the text in terms of its main features and structure, belonging to

certain functional varieties of language, features of linguistic design, use expressive means language;

understanding the communicative and aesthetic possibilities of lexical and grammatical synonymy and using them in one’s own speech practice;
awareness of the aesthetic function of the native language, the ability to evaluate the aesthetic side of a speech utterance when analyzing texts of fiction.

Place of the course "R one language"

in basic training(educational) plan

The Federal basic (educational) curriculum for educational institutions of the Russian Federation (option No. 2) provides for compulsory study of the native language at the stage of basic general education

The approximate program in the native language for basic general education reflects the invariant part.

17:44 — REGNUM

In Bashkiria, there has been an intensification of discussion regarding the compulsory study of the Bashkir language, the exchange of opinions is reminiscent of front-line reports. According to parent activists, several schools have already adopted curricula with voluntary study of the Bashkir language. The impetus for a new round of controversy was the posting on the official website of the republican prosecutor's office of a message explaining the issue of studying the Bashkir language in schools.

One prosecutor's explanation - three interpretations

The supervisory authority noted that in “schools may introduce teaching and learning of the state languages of the republics of the Russian Federation, citizens have the right to study their native language from among the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation (Article 14 of the Federal Law “On Education in the Russian Federation”).” According to employees of the prosecutor’s office, “the law enshrines the right, not the obligation, to study native languages and state languages of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.”

“The teaching of state languages of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and native languages is carried out with special features. Here the Federal Law “On Education in the Russian Federation”, federal state educational standards, and the basic curriculum must be taken into account. It is important that the curricula of schools that provide for the study of the Bashkir language and native languages comply with the requirements of the law. When approving curricula, the opinion of each parent (legal representative) of students regarding the study of subjects must be taken into account (Part 3, Article 30, Clause 1, Part 7, Part 3, Article 44 of the Federal Law “On Education in the Russian Federation”).” , the message explains.

The explanation ends with a warning:

“Teaching native languages, including the Bashkir language, contrary to the consent of parents ( legal representatives) students are not allowed. For illegal restriction of the rights and freedoms of students in educational organizations provided for by the legislation on education, administrative liability is provided under Part 2 of Art. 5.57 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.”

Today there are several interpretations of this clarification. Representatives of Bashkir nationalist organizations saw in the prosecutors’ message “substitution of the concepts of the Bashkir native and Bashkir state languages”, “pressure on participants in the educational process”, “signs of the liquidation of national republics”, “arbitrariness” and even “violation of the norms and rights of our state and society in our region”, which particular state and society was not specified. By “trampling”, Bashkir nationalists understand the right of schools to determine for themselves which elective subjects they will study.

(cc)Behind the river

Representatives of the parent community believe that the Bashkir language cannot be included in the invariative part, mandatory for all Russian-speaking and national educational institutions throughout Russia, otherwise all Russian schoolchildren would have to learn it.

“Now each of us must give a written statement agreeing to our children studying the Bashkir state language, Russian, Tatar, Bashkir native language, and other native languages, for example, Chuvash or Mari. Facts of pressure on us from the school administration when filing under the special control of the prosecutor’s office,” say the parents.

There is a third approach to the language situation:

“If the federal center has firmly decided to restore order in the field of language teaching, order will be restored. In the nineties of the last century in Bashkiria, the compulsory Bashkir language was strictly introduced for all students, but soon this subject disappeared from most Russian-speaking schools, and no one shouted about “trampling” and “humiliating the Bashkir language”, no one wondered whether they would die of hunger families of unemployed teachers of the Bashkir language, everything went quietly and unnoticed, because everyone understood that this was not teaching, but an imitation of teaching the Bashkir language. If there were no shocks then, then there will be no shocks now. Another question is how decisive and consistent the federal center will be.”

Metamorphoses are late

The second and last introduction of compulsory Bashkir occurred in 2006 under the reign of Murtaza Rakhimov. At the same time, in 2006, Russian-speaking schoolchildren in Bashkiria began to study the Russian language in smaller volumes than the Russian average, since the Bashkir language was taught from three to five hours a week, in addition, disciplines such as “ Culture of the Bashkir people”, “History of Bashkiria” and even “Geography of Bashkiria”. The most noticeable reduction in Russian philology lessons was observed among first-graders; instead of five writing lessons and four reading lessons per week, they received only three writing lessons and two reading lessons. A flurry of criticism was caused by the textbook “Living Springs”, which had become odious, for the first and second grades of Russian-language schools.

In 2006 and the next few years, Bashkir nationalists, as well as teachers of the Bashkir language, argued that teaching Russian-speaking children the Bashkir language is carried out according to impeccable programs and textbooks, all Russian children, without exception, want to study the Bashkir language and other “Bashkortostan” subjects, and liberation from studying the Bashkir language for certain categories of students will lead to the immediate death of the Bashkir language. Among the arguments “for universal and compulsory Bashkir” were: “you are sheltered - learn, otherwise leave”, “show respect for the titular people”, “the Bashkir language needs protection”.

By 2017, subtle changes had occurred in the rhetoric of the advocates; individual representatives of the pedagogical community began to admit that textbooks and programs for universal Bashkir were prepared in a hurry, that the acquisition of Bashkir by schoolchildren was not so impressive, not only some Russians, but also Bashkir children did not want to learn Bashkir. and the successes in the field of introducing Bashkir are described by a sharp, but truthful phrase: “Exotic teachers demonstrate the achievements of exotic students, and in the general mass, none of the Russian-speaking children who do not have Tatar or Bashkir relatives spoke Bashkir.”

The reaction of supporters of forced learning of the Bashkir language is ambiguous. The most radicalized elements make rash statements in which it is difficult not to notice the idea of separatism. Some social activists hope to “protect the Bashkir language” through various kinds of actions, petitions and appeals, including to the prosecutor’s office. There are ideas of uniting the efforts of nationalists from different national republics of the Volga Federal District. Some “human rights activists” dream of changing Russian and regional legislation, and some insist that it is necessary to establish a new norm: learning one’s native language should become not a right, but a duty.

And in the general chorus of loud indignation, bordering on blackmail demands and the search for the guilty, the piercing notes of sorrowful confession are lost: “Native language, the language of my mother and my ancestors, the language of lingering songs, from which everything turns upside down in the soul, a language in the sounds of which one can hear the rustle of a calcined the sun of the steppe grass and the whistle of a flying arrow, how guilty we are all before you! Native language, live and don’t die.”

There is another special, uncharacteristic opinion:

“If then, in 2006, the Bashnationalists had not demanded from above, but had patiently explained and, I’m not afraid of this word, sincerely asked for help from the strong to the weak and shared their heartache for the fate of the beautiful, unique Bashkir language, if school administrations had been more flexible and friendly towards parents and children, if remarks about “Russian occupiers and colonialists” had been heard less often, as well as urgent recommendations to go to Ryazan, then perhaps it would not have come to the point of prosecutorial checks.”

And very few would dare to add: “and if the needs of special children were taken into account.”

The most vulnerable

The most vulnerable in language battles were Russian-speaking children with health and intellectual problems. Neither the prosecutor's office nor social activists have yet found clear defenders of their educational interests in the language sphere.

“Special textbooks and methods are needed for special children, and this applied to all subjects except the Bashkir language. But parents did not dare explain the inadmissibility of teaching sick children subjects using untested or even non-existent programs. Every year, classes in special, correctional schools became smaller and smaller, and none of the parents wanted their child to be “kicked out” of the school. Everyone understood everything, but they were afraid,” shared the mother of one of the autistic adults.

According to her, the most difficult thing was to achieve education in school for children with psychological and intellectual problems. There are not so few such children, only in Ufa there are several correctional boarding schools of the eighth type open for them; for children with less pronounced problems there are other correctional schools. A child recognized by a medical-psychological commission as uneducable was not even allowed into schools of the eighth type and remained outside of education forever. But even once he got to school, at the end of the school year he could be recognized as uneducable, transferred to home schooling, or left without schooling at all. The commission made its conclusions based on the school’s recommendations, so parents were afraid of spoiling relations with the school administration.

“It is healthy or considered healthy children who can move from one school to another; our children are completely deprived of this opportunity,” the parents explain their humility.

For such children, appropriate programs and textbooks have been created for decades, if regular school While first-graders spent six months studying the ABC book, children from schools of the eighth type studied the alphabet for two years, and by the end of the first grade they settled on the letter “v.” Some of these children had serious problems with a speech. Not all students in eighth grade schools studied a foreign language, and not from the second or even the fifth grade.

And these children, who had not fully mastered their native Russian language, were forced to learn the Bashkir language.

“Their peers in other regions of Russia studied Russian or studied with defectologists and speech therapists, while our children sat in Bashkir lessons and did not understand anything, wasting precious time,” parents of special children recall with pain.

“Why do you need urban Russian-speaking children with speech and intellectual problems to learn the Bashkir language? Children, most of whom, without the enormous help of the family and the family’s linguistic environment, will never learn foreign languages that are more accessible to them? What joy do you have in the fact that the appearance of studying Bashkir will be created for them at the expense of inordinate educational time, because the majority of these problem children will sooner or later be recognized as unteachable and will not be able to go even to the tenth grade? - social activists sometimes asked Bashkir nationalists who insisted on the universal study of the Bashkir language by every schoolchild in Bashkiria. There was no clear answer.

It cannot be said that the gravity of the situation is not clear to all those who must understand the needs of “special children.” One of the representatives of the Bashkir Institute for Educational Development (BIRO) recommended that the parents of these children look for sympathetic specialists and, accompanied by them, contact various authorities.

Is there a certificate without a Bashkir one?

Soon after the introduction of the seemingly compulsory study of the Bashkir language in 2006, children who had not studied Bashkir began to appear in the republic. Some of them did this absolutely officially; they studied in private schools, where only the invariative part was required, the same for all of Russia, and everything else was studied by the joint choice of parents and teachers. Among them were children with some developmental problems, and, on the contrary, highly gifted children, child athletes, as well as children who were often ill. All of them at one time received certificates of secondary education of the all-Russian standard.

But even students secondary schools may not have learned Bashkir quite officially: these are children who are home-schooled, children studying according to individual curricula and through the external education system.

Some of the abandoned children did not study Bashkir “at their own peril and risk.” It is difficult to determine from whom the initiative not to study the Bashkir language came, from the parents or from the children themselves. Advocates of compulsory learning of Bashkir claim that it was “closed-minded” Bashkir-phobic parents who forbade their children to learn Bashkir, but there are known facts when mothers and fathers were in favor of learning Bashkir, but their high school children, contrary to their parents’ requests to “give in and be more flexible,” did not study Bashkir of one's own free will. All of them received certificates, and several of them were awarded a gold medal, and this completely refutes the thesis that “only quitters and mediocrities” do not want to study the Bashkir language.

The motives for refusing to study Bashkir are different, but in one way or another they are interconnected: “it’s not necessary, it won’t be useful”, “we’ll leave anyway, so why?”, “it’s a waste of time.”

There might have been more such parents if parents had not been under pressure from the school administration.

How they put pressure and pressure on parents

All methods of “working with refusing parents” boiled down to lies and intimidation. The most important argument was the false statement that “otherwise your child will not be promoted to the next grade.” In Bashkiria, not a single case has been recorded in which a student remained in the second year without being certified only in the subject “Bashkir language”. Also false was the statement that “without Bashkir they will not issue a certificate.” Another method is to suggest that without studying the Bashkir language, the mandatory Unified State Exam in the Bashkir language will not be passed. As parents-refuseniks note, “this is a blatant lie, Russia has a single educational space, and the mandatory Unified State Examination should be the same throughout the country.” In one of the Ufa schools, a verbal threat was noted not to enroll a child in the 10th grade.

The psychological pressure is somewhat subtler when the repressions of the school administration could affect not the child refuseniks themselves, but someone else. The threat of “taking away the teacher from the class” was difficult for elementary school children and parents to perceive. In elementary school, the role of the teacher - class teacher is quite large, since he leads most of the lessons; replacing a teacher can cause stress for primary schoolchildren.

The arsenal of pressure does not end there. In isolated cases, the school administration may intervene in judicial and other proceedings between parents and take the side of the one who is more loyal to the teaching of the Bashkir language. Some parents were threatened to “report to work about disrespect for the Bashkir language.” One of the innovations was the writing of unflattering characteristics. As a sample, one of the mothers demonstrated a description from school-gymnasium No. 39, where, according to her, the director Irina Kiekbaeva and social educator Anna Gibadullina, going beyond the scope of their competencies, touch on aspects of her character and make very controversial and sometimes mutually exclusive conclusions about her “destructive activities,” “authoritarianism,” and “susceptibility to the influence of others.”

“War is like war. What’s interesting is that the social teacher didn’t even talk to me or my children. Would she have violated professional and human ethics if it weren’t for my special treatment for my children to learn the Bashkir language? — doubts the Ufa resident, the holder of a certificate “for significant contribution to the development of the gymnasium”, who worked for five years as chairman of the parents’ committee.

Another type of psychological pressure on parents is the neglect shown by both school management and education departments in municipal district administrations. As I told you IA REGNUM Ufa Alla Terekhova, While trying to obtain an individual education plan (IEP) for her second-grader son, she received an invitation to appear at the office of the head of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs and Education Larisa Bochkareva with your own office equipment and consumables:

“They checked my documents twice, but the woman who had the folder with materials for making copies refused to identify herself and her position. The folder lacked any hint of a list of documents and materials. In the end, the above-mentioned person tried to force me to write a text that did not correspond to reality and sign it. The pressure stopped only after my husband said he would call the police. We had to put the photocopier on the floor, visitors were constantly coming in and out, while I was bending over, changing paper and inserting documents, and all this under the notation “Since you live in the Kalininsky district, please respect the administration of this district.”

All these nuances add up to one big question for me about the professional suitability of both the head of the department and his subordinates. What else can you call such an organization of work other than a complete mess? And if this happens in government itself, then is it surprising that the same style migrates to education. And what will such education specialists teach our children? "

What is happening now, or who is framing whom?

According to parents, a general prosecutor's inspection of all schools in the republic regarding the voluntary nature of studying the Bashkir language will take place in September. In August, teachers, parents, and school administrations, whose student representatives have already reported facts of violation of the educational rights of schoolchildren, were and are being invited to the prosecutor's office. School administrations are hastily collecting applications from parents agreeing to study their native languages and Bashkir as the state languages.

Local media have already told how this happened using the example of a story from one of the residents of the Demsky district about how she was asked to fill out these applications. As told to the correspondent IA REGNUM Ufa Olga Komleva, she was asked to approach the director, and she approached because she wanted to find out “what’s going on with the approval of the curriculum and what to do if we don’t want to study Bashkir.” According to the activist, the initiator of filling out the already printed forms was the city department of education. The main violation is that the curricula have already been signed by school directors, and statements from parents, which are required by law (Article 44 of the Federal Law), have not been collected, so the prosecutor's office can appeal these curricula.

“And school principals will now turn out to be extreme. The Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus or the GUNO, or whoever is there, they are sent curricula, which they are unlikely to change, who would dare to do this, and they expose them to inspections by the prosecutor’s office, since the school director signs and he answers,” he empathizes with the school directors agency interlocutor.

“Of course, we live in Bashkiria, but this does not mean that the federal law on education should be violated. It is written in the law - lessons in the variative part only with the consent of the parents - which means it should be so. Bashkiria has always been a calm region nationally, and only after the imposition of language learning in schools did disputes begin. Please, education officials, stop this. Don’t set up school principals, and if you released curricula with the Bashkir language into schools without taking into account the opinions of parents, send an explanation to the prosecutor’s office. School principals should not be responsible for your policies. We still have 10 years to study,” Olga Komleva calls on officials and asks school directors “not to be fooled by the instructions of the GUNO that parental consent is not required to study the Bashkir language.”

Alla Terekhova has a slightly different opinion:

“You shouldn’t perceive school principals as wordless decorations on which nothing depends. In some schools, on the initiative of the directors, children who do not study Bashkir are treated extremely harshly, in others, also at the will of the administration, they are left alone. In some schools, the Bashkir language is studied voluntarily in grades 10 and 11, in others it is imposed. Something also depends on the director’s personality, and sometimes they set themselves up.”

But all mothers and fathers are unanimous on one thing: if we ourselves do not protect the rights of our children, no one will do it for us.

According to the latest data, in several schools in the republic, parents are asked to fill out application forms with a column indicating consent or disagreement for their child to study Bashkir as the state language outside of school hours. Photos of the forms are at the disposal of the editors. In one of the schools, located on the border with Tataria, according to parent activists, a school curriculum has been adopted without studying the Bashkir language.

As reported IA REGNUM source, until September 20, school directors will have the opportunity to adopt educational plans, taking into account the opinions of parents and signing all necessary applications and documents. The prosecutor's office does not want to pursue prosecution of teachers and directors, but they will not be allowed to violate the law either. What conclusion both parents and teachers make depends only on them.

A professor from North Ossetia about the disaster for national languages, the situation of “semi-culture” of young Russians and marginalized peoples

At a recent forum-dialogue in Moscow “Language Policy: All-Russian Expertise” with the participation of the head of the FADN, Igor Barinov, who covered BUSINESS Online, they discussed the issues of national languages that unexpectedly came to the forefront of public discussion. One of the reports on this topic was presented by the head of the UNESCO Department of the North Ossetian Pedagogical Institute, philologist and sociolinguist Tamerlan Kambolov. With the permission of the author, we publish the text of his speech.

“THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SYSTEM IS NOT ABLE TO ENSURE QUALITY ACQUISITION OF STUDENTS’ NATIVE LANGUAGES”

As stated in this press release, its main purpose is to “develop proposals for the creation optimal conditions for the preservation and development of the languages of the peoples of Russia, the organization of the educational process aimed at the formation of an all-Russian civil identity, taking into account the linguistic situation in the regions of our country.” Thus, we are talking about two important tasks - national-cultural and general political, the solution of which must be carried out mainly within the framework of the educational system. And in this regard, we must first answer the question: does it allow modern system Russian education to solve these problems?

First, let's look at the situation with native languages. On the one hand, the federal state educational standards (FSES) indeed clearly formulate in the list of the main goals of educational policy such a mission as the preservation and development of the native languages of the peoples of Russia. At the same time, with the transition to the new Federal State Educational Standards, the subject “Native Language” seemed to significantly strengthen its status, moving into the category of compulsory subjects of the federal component of the basic curriculum. However, in reality, there was an actual deterioration in its situation, since the amount of hours allocated for its study (namely, three hours) is less compared to the amount (usually 5 hours per week) that was provided for the study of native languages before the transition to new standards within the framework of the now abolished national-regional component. In addition, the status of a federal academic subject deprives regions of the opportunity to influence the situation with the “Native Language” discipline and adjust the volume of its study. The conclusion is clear: within the allocated educational time, the modern system of domestic education is not able to ensure high-quality acquisition of native languages by students.

It would seem that this situation should have led to solutions that would remove the above problems and truly contribute to the creation of optimal conditions for the study of native languages. However, we are seeing the adoption of measures that are directly opposite in their ideology, which can only worsen the position of native languages in the education system and, accordingly, the prospects for their preservation and development in society. We are talking, in particular, about two items of the List of Instructions of the President of the Russian Federation, formulated following the meeting of the Council on Interethnic Relations held on July 20, 2017.

In paragraph 3 of this document, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation is instructed, together with Rosobrnadzor, to verify compliance in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation concerning ensuring the rights of citizens of the Russian Federation to voluntarily study their native language from among the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation and the state languages of the republics that are part of the Russian Federation. Clause 4 requires senior officials of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to ensure, firstly, measures to bring the volume of study by students in basic general education programs of the Russian language to the level recommended by the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia, as well as to improve the level and quality of their mastery of the Russian language as the state language of the Russian Federation. Secondly, the heads of the country's constituent entities are obliged to ensure that students in basic general education programs study their native language from among the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation and the state languages of the republics that are part of the Russian Federation, on a voluntary basis at the choice of their parents (legal representatives).

There is no doubt that the requirements for ensuring the normative volume of hours in the Russian language established by the Federal State Educational Standard must be strictly fulfilled, just like in any other compulsory subject of the curriculum.

“We are convinced that the implementation of the principle of choosing one’s native language or the introduction of the right to voluntarily choose to study one’s native language will lead the languages and cultures of the non-Russian peoples of the country to disaster.”

“IN ACCORDANCE WITH RUSSIAN LEGISLATION, PARENTS DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOICE A LANGUAGE, BUT NOT THE LANGUAGE YOU STUDY, BUT THE LANGUAGE OF TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN”

The cited paragraphs of the Instructions raise another question. On the basis of what constitutional, legislative or other legal status suddenly there was talk about the right to voluntary study of native languages? Let us remind you that, in accordance with Russian legislation, parents do have the right to choose the language, but not the language they study, but the language of instruction for their children. Article 3, paragraph 3 of the “Law on the Languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation” states that “subjects of the Russian Federation, in accordance with this Law, have the right to adopt laws and other regulatory legal acts to protect the rights of citizens to freely choose the language of communication, education, training and creativity.” In Art. 9, paragraph 1 of the same law also states that “citizens of the Russian Federation have the right to freely choose the language of education and training.” The Federal Law “On Education” (Article 14, Part 1) also postulates that “in the Russian Federation, education is guaranteed in the state language of the Russian Federation, as well as the choice of the language of instruction and upbringing.” However, the subject “native language,” as noted above, is included in the list of compulsory subjects of the federal educational component and, accordingly, cannot be studied by choice or on a voluntary basis. Moreover, refusal to study it will lead to failure to complete the curriculum and the inability to pass the final certification.

In fact, an attempt to create legislative prerequisites for reducing the role of the native languages of the peoples of Russia in the education system, to encourage a refusal to study them, was made back in 2014, when the draft federal law “On Amendments to the Law of the Russian Federation “On languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation." This bill envisaged, in particular, the introduction of the principle of “free choice of the native language from among the languages of the peoples of Russia in accordance with the needs of the individual, abilities and interests of the person,” as well as “the implementation of the rights of citizens to freely choose ... their native language from among the languages of the peoples of Russia “.

We are convinced that the implementation of the principle of choosing one’s native language or the introduction of the right to voluntarily choose to study one’s native language will lead the languages and cultures of the non-Russian peoples of the country to disaster. This is due to the fact that, given the mandatory requirement for all students to pass the Unified State Exam in Russian, and other subjects only in Russian, many parents of non-Russian nationalities will prefer to declare Russian as their children’s native language or simply refuse to study their native language, since this will increase amount of time for their children to study the Russian language and other subjects. As a result, schoolchildren who continue to study their native languages will find themselves in a more disadvantaged position both in relation to the Russian language and general educational training. The introduction of such a system will lead to the destruction of the educational structure itself, since it will inevitably lead to the division of classes into two groups - those who study and those who do not study their native languages, to the preparation of separate schedules for them, etc.

Such a development of events will completely undermine the social position of the native languages of the peoples of the country, most of which are already in a deplorable state.

“The solution to the strategic task of forming a Russian civil nation should not involve accelerating the linguistic assimilation of new generations of the peoples of Russia, but all possible assistance in the preservation and development of linguistic diversity in the country”

“RUSSIAN LANGUAGE ASSIMILATION OF MILLIONS OF CHILDREN IN NATIONAL REPUBLICS HAS SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE GENERAL CULTURAL CONSEQUENCES”

As is known, the development of the language situation in most national regions of the country in the second half of the twentieth century led to the fact that currently a significant part of students speaks their native language very poorly or does not speak it at all. This is a fairly well-known fact, but we would like to draw attention to the fact that the Russian language assimilation of millions of children in national republics has significant negative general cultural consequences. The fact is that Russian linguistic assimilation does not entail adequate Russian cultural assimilation and leads to the formation of culturally amorphous zones over vast areas of Russia, i.e. zones with no cultural dominant. This is due to the fact that the ethnic cultures of the peoples of Russia, weakened due to known reasons back in the second half of the last century, now they are increasingly alienated from the younger generations, who are losing linguistic access to the values of their cultural tradition.

Russian ethnic culture also cannot prevail here due to the fact that the Russian population only in rare cases constitutes a majority in national regions. Moreover, in his current state Russian ethnoculture is unable to help even the Russian ethnic group itself adapt to a rapidly changing world. Any political-ideological system cannot lay claim to the role of a cultural dominant, since in modern Russia this does not currently exist. As a result, millions of young Russian citizens now find themselves in a situation of “semi-culture,” hanging between the rudiments of various traditional cultural systems that coexist in their picture of the world. The winner is mass consumer culture, turning many young Russians into soulless, mercantile subjects, unable to perceive the ethical values of either their own or someone else’s culture. Obviously, the prospect of its complete dominance entails the danger of the predominance of consumer-type personalities in society, which poses a threat to the intellectual and spiritual progress of Russia. Attempts to form a single civil nation from such a culturally marginal population have little prospects.

Accordingly, one should be aware that the solution to the strategic task of forming a Russian civil nation should imply, paradoxically, not the acceleration of the linguistic assimilation of new generations of the peoples of Russia, but all possible assistance in the preservation and development of linguistic diversity in the country. At the same time, the chain of dependencies seems to be as follows: knowledge of an ethnic language is a tool for the perception and assimilation of ethnic culture, which, in turn, becomes the basis, the building material for the formation of a common civic identity.

“THE WAY OUT IS TO RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS BASIC CURRICULUM STRUCTURE”

However, before moving on to the question of methods for forming civic identity, it is necessary to dwell on other aspects of language policy. And if until now, speaking about the study of native languages, we meant, first of all, the native languages of the so-called titular peoples of the national republics, now we would like to raise the issue of teaching the native languages of numerous ethnic groups living on the territory of almost any subject of the Russian Federation . For example, in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, in addition to Ossetian, Ingush and Kumyk languages are studied as native languages in places where representatives of these ethnic groups live densely. However, representatives of dozens of other nationalities live in Ossetia, and the number of some communities exceeds ten thousand people. And this situation is typical for most subjects of the country, including Russian-titular ones.

What does the concept of language educational policy imply in relation to these groups? Is, for example, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania obliged to provide the opportunity to study native languages for all ethnic groups living on its territory, if the subject is “native language”, according to baseline plan, is mandatory? And if so, then at the expense of what pedagogical, educational, methodological and financial resources? Will the practice of creating schools with different ethnocultural components lead to national segregation, which will then spread to the general social context? Is the requirement to provide the opportunity to study their native language imposed only on national subjects or, for example, in the Tula region, should local communities also have the right to study their native language? If the study of native languages by non-titular ethnic groups in republics and diasporas in other regions is not necessary, then what about the legislative universal right to study their native language?

Finally, another perspective on language educational policy. We are talking about problems with teaching the state languages of the republics within the Russian Federation. As is known, the republics, in accordance with the Constitution of Russia (Article 68, Part 2), “have the right to establish their own state languages.” This provision is confirmed by the federal laws “On the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation” and “On education”. The latest document notes (Chapter 1, Article 6, paragraph 6) that “issues of studying the state languages of the republics within the Russian Federation are regulated by the legislation of these republics.” And indeed, for example, the “Law on Education” of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania (Article 8, Part 2) states that “in state and municipal educational organizations located on the territory of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, implementing educational programs of preschool, primary general, basic general, secondary general education, the Ossetian language is taught and studied as one of the state languages of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania.”

Thus, the entire legislative framework seems to be harmoniously built on the basis of the country’s Constitution, and no problems should arise for the implementation of the provision on the study of the state languages of the republics. Yes, this was the case until the national-regional component, within the framework of which the compulsory study of the state languages of the republics was carried out, was abolished. The current educational standards simply do not contain such a discipline, and their structure does not allow the republics to independently include the study of state languages in the educational process. Thus, a seemingly insignificant departmental act, i.e. The basic curriculum developed by the Ministry of Education and Science actually deprives the republics of the right provided for by the Constitution of the country and federal laws to regulate the teaching of their state languages.

In general, it can be stated that modern language policy in the field of education is characterized by a non-systematic, unbalanced nature, is in certain aspects in conflict with federal and regional legislation and, as a consequence, does not allow creating the necessary conditions for the preservation and development of the native languages of the peoples of the country. We believe that the way out of this situation is to return to the previous structure of the basic curriculum, in which a separate block was allocated for the study of subjects of the national-regional component, and to give the country’s subjects the opportunity, within the framework of their constitutional and legislative powers, to resolve issues of educational and language policy in the field native languages and state languages of the republics in accordance with the peculiarities of the linguistic situation in each region.

“NO UNIFYING POLITICAL-IDEOLOGICAL ERSATZ LIKE THE “MORAL CODE OF THE BUILDER OF COMMUNISM” OF THE SOVIET TIMES IS POSSIBLE”

Let's move on to the second fundamental problem of the Forum, namely the question of ways and means of forming Russian civic identity.

It can be assumed that the Presidium of the State Council of the Russian Federation, held in February 2011 and dedicated to the development interethnic relations in the country, brought clarity to the issue of choosing a concept for the formation of civic identity. Modern state policy of nation-building is based on the understanding that no unifying political-ideological ersatz, like the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism” of Soviet times, is impossible at the current stage of the country’s historical development. We must proceed from the fact that the formation of Russian civilization was historically based on the spiritual traditions of the peoples of the country, and in the future, the sustainable development of our state can be ensured only by preserving the traditional moral values inherent in the ethnic cultures of the peoples of the country, on which only new generations can be formed personally full-fledged Russian citizens. At the same time, it is naturally important to ensure that support for ethnocultural diversity, as a development resource, does not create preconditions for disintegration and separatist processes, and does not become an obstacle to the formation of a sense of all-Russian civic identity among the country's population.

It seems obvious that in solving the complex task of balancing centripetal (i.e., general civil) and centrifugal (i.e., ethnocultural) tendencies in the processes of Russian nation-building, a special role belongs to the educational system, since it is in its depths that the formation of an all-Russian civil worldview, on the one hand, and the transmission of the basic ethnocultural values of the peoples of the country, on the other.

And - most importantly - it is in the education system that their harmonious relationships can be most productively regulated.

However, to what extent Russian system is education ready to solve this political problem?

As is known, a number of documents of the Federal State Educational Standard, in particular in the “Concept of spiritual and moral development and upbringing of the personality of a citizen of Russia,” consistently postulate the multicultural nature of the content of education, indicate the need to create conditions within the educational system both for the formation of the personality of a citizen of Russia and for meeting the ethnocultural needs of students. However, the problem is that the modern educational system does not offer specific technologies on how to achieve each of these goals, much less how to combine them in practice in the educational process.

In reality, current textbooks reflect only the federal component of the content, and the question is how the teacher should teach the regional or ethnocultural characteristics of the topics being studied in music, fine arts, the surrounding world, etc. remains open. As is known, until now the formation of the ethnocultural hypostasis of a student’s personality has been carried out within the framework of teaching the national-regional educational component and through appropriate educational and methodological support developed in the regions. However, with the introduction of new standards, the very concept of “national-regional component” ceased to exist and, as a result, the possibility of using the corresponding educational literature was eliminated. How, with the help of what textbooks, will the teacher have to teach the regional or ethnocultural characteristics of the topics being studied in music, fine arts, the surrounding world, etc.?

“THIS AUTOMATICALLY LEADS THE CHILD TO SELF-POSITIONING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE – A CARRIER OF AN INCOMPLETE CULTURE”

In our opinion, the solution to this problem should be quite innovative and carried out through the introduction of programs and federal textbooks of a new, integrated type, the content of which should harmoniously combine, act as a single whole, special and cultural knowledge of both a universal and all-Russian format, and an ethnocultural level. We consider, in principle, the traditional form of separate teaching of federal and national-regional components of educational content to be deeply erroneous. When a child studies Russian or foreign art according to a beautiful Moscow textbook, and his own national painting is presented to him in the form of magazine clippings pinned to the board, he inevitably, on a suggestive level, forms the idea that what is important and important is what is in the textbook, and his culture is what something secondary, optional. This automatically leads the child, and then the adult who grows from him, to self-positioning as a representative of the people - a bearer of an “inferior” culture, as a marginalized person in the human community. Even if the educational process is organized differently, and information about your ethnic culture the child receives from a regional application, this is also not the best option - the universal, national and ethnocultural cannot be opposed and separated from each other.

Firstly, separate teaching of these components inevitably faces the problem of a lack of hours, since federal textbooks themselves are already designed to use the entire limit of teaching time, leaving no room for ethnocultural application. But what is even more important is that it is precisely this separation of content components in the form of federal textbooks and their regional supplements, practiced until recently, that actually contributes to the disintegration of the picture of the world formed through them among schoolchildren. We are convinced that ethnocultural orientation, all-Russian cultural values and universal ideals should be combined in one textbook based on the principles of ideological and thematic unity, meaningful correspondence and consistency, and comprehension of the surrounding natural and social world should be built on the movement from ethnic to regional, then to national and, finally, to the universal, i.e. from near to distant, from concrete to abstract, from known to unknown. This will allow, firstly, to build the learning process on principles that are more consistent with the characteristics of human cognitive activity, and, secondly, to form in the student an idea of his ethnic culture as an element of all-Russian and world cultures, and about himself - at the same time as the heir of his ethnocultural tradition, citizen of the Russian nation and member of the world community. Only such a multicultural personality is capable of creative political, economic and social life in the modern multifaceted globalized world.

The outlined system of multicultural education was developed in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania and is presented in the form of a special document - “Concepts for the development of multicultural education in the Russian Federation.” Moreover, we tested it both at the regional level and within the framework of the Federal Target Program for Education Development. Currently, the system of multicultural education is beginning to be introduced into the republican educational sphere as one of the models of preschool and general education.

At the same time, we should especially emphasize our conviction that the system of multicultural education should be intended not only for the national titular subjects of the country. The problem of forming a correct sense of Russian civic identity for students in national Russian subjects, which, in our opinion, is even more complex than in national republics, can also largely be solved through the development and implementation of similar multicultural programs and textbooks. Their content should include, along with the Russian ethnocultural core, regional local history facts, information about the cultural traditions of ethnic groups living in a given subject, as well as knowledge about the national cultures of other, non-Russian peoples of the country. This will make it possible over time to expand the current scope of the meaning of the word “Russian”, which is more often perceived by residents of central Russia as a synonym for the ethnonym “Russian”, and to include other peoples of the country in their self-identification category “we are Russians”.

As a result, we consider it advisable to recommend that the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation consider the feasibility of returning issues of educational and language policy to the competence of regional educational authorities, restoring the national-regional or ethnocultural part of the curriculum. And also to conduct a large-scale expert assessment of the potential of a multicultural educational model to solve the problem of forming a Russian civil nation within the framework of the educational system.

Tamerlan Kambolov

Kambolov Tamerlan Taimurazovich– Russian philologist-Ossetian scholar and sociolinguist, Doctor of Philology, professor of North Ossetian state university named after Khetagurov, full member of the Academy of Pedagogical and Social Sciences, first vice-rector for scientific work and development of North Ossetian State University (2011 - 2016), head of the UNESCO Department for Multicultural and Multilingual Education of the North Ossetian State Pedagogical Institute, member of the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, member of the Coordination Committee of UNESCO Chairs of the Russian Federation, Advisor to the Head of the Republic of North Ossetia - Alanya on issues of national and cultural development.

Born in 1959 in the village of Khaznidon, Iraf region of North Ossetia. After graduating from university, I worked for three years as a translator in Algeria. From 1984 to the present day he has been working at SOGU with a break for the period of full-time postgraduate study. Leningrad University, upon completion of which in 1992 he defended his PhD thesis on the lexicology of modern French. In 2002 he defended his doctoral dissertation in sociolinguistics. Since 1993 – Dean of the Faculty foreign languages, then the Faculty of International Relations, then again foreign languages SOGU. Since 2005, he has simultaneously headed the UNESCO Department of the North Ossetian State Pedagogical Institute. Since 2007 - Academician of the Russian Academy of Pedagogical and Social Sciences.