What does it look like in practice?
Lets suppose there is a cohort of students. The children are divided into two subgroups, or even three, if the school can afford maintaining that much staff. That is, instead of three small classes of 12 people, we have one class, but with subgroups of 12. One subgroup consists of children that are ahead of the curriculum, the second group has students of average performance, and the last subgroup has children that have, for example, difficulty mastering spatial concepts and mathematics, in particular. In the last subgroup, we introduce correctional initiatives: we work with didactic material, use game aids, give visual supports.
Or, for example, the Russian language. There are kids who have a knack for the languages, then we just go with them through a good program at a fast pace. There are children with dysgraphia, with dyslexia, these are curated by a speech therapist. Also, a child can be in an advanced math group, but as regards the Russian language, he/she can be in a group of children with dysgraphia and dyslexia. And some kid can be in the top group in all disciplines.
This way, all children learn together. That is, in fact, instead of three classes there are several levels for each core subject. For some lessons, the children get together in one big classroom, do some projects together, communicate together. But I did not see that in elementary school, only in middle school. Yet things are not exactly implemented like that in practice. I believe that education should become fully personalized (and in fact, it already is, if you look at the rise of the tutoring institution). But how do you reconcile the personalized track with the need to socialize and interact with children? Probably, the School of the Future is an attempt to combine collective activity with an individual academic route.
You described three big blocks in the educational program of the school of the future: academics, creativity, and health. And you spoke in sufficient detail about the academic part the educational process happening at different levels. What would be the characteristics of the other two components, health and creativity?
The perfect school for me is not one that selects the best kids by giving them a bunch of tests at the entrance, but a school that will tell them: Okay, come in. And then they will build a certain learning path.
Here, again, variability is the only option. For example, in the Health block, different types of sports are needed, so that children can take two or three lessons of each type during the first trimester, getting to know all the options available. For example, yoga, soccer, gymnastics and acrobatics for both boys and girls. Later on, the children would also divide into subgroups, depending on who wants to do what. In other words, there is variability: try different things, choose something to your liking. Children should be able to ask themselves a question: "What do I want? Of course, at this stage parents and tutors should help if the child cannot make the choice, or does not want to.
The own resources management block is a kind of story in the form of workshops, internships. A mix of humanities: ethics, practical psychology, mindfulness. In order to be effective, we need to understand our psycho-emotional sphere, to manage it.
Parents come in and say: "How do I tell a child to take it easy?" A few meditation practices for children have long been described and practiced in some Western schools.
Then there is also the topic of creativity. Here I would also give them the opportunity to try different things, then choose what they want to do, what workshop and what project they want to work on.
Anna, why do you think there are no models coming to us from abroad, other than the International Baccalaureate?
Its all coming, it has just started to appear. But it all boils down to the lack of sufficient sites to implement this. And there probably arent any managers who are good at it. We think of it this way: we are going to just find some good experienced teachers, «headhunt» them from public or private schools, borrow a stronger curriculum, and everything will be cool. But any good teachers can only exist along the lines of a concept that has been developing here for some time. For example, there is a concept of developmental learning, which appeared in the Soviet Union in the 1960s. It is now experiencing its second birth.
It seems to me that every parent wants something more, but in fact everyone only cares about passing the USE. The child has to enter a University (especially a boy).
When I talk to school principals, they all say that teachers who know how to deliver this curriculum are nowhere to be found. It turns out that it all comes down to the fact that you can create a school, design an interesting space, but who will come to teach there?
As regards the concept of developmental learning, how do you rate it now, in light of what is happening?
I find it interesting. It must also be developed, reworked. There are many complaints about it. There it all rests on the fact that the concept of developmental learning can only be implemented well by someone who understands what developmental learning actually is. That is, it is not just a technique that you can simply give and a person will start teaching. It turns out that people are few and far between. Because, first of all, initially it was to be subject education, actually, what I was talking about, different teachers for the Russian language and math, each working with their own stream. Where do we get them from?
We have almost no separate philologists and separate mathematicians. It all comes down to the lack of people.
It is clear that if there is no supply, there is no demand, but does it work the other way around? If such a school were is to be opened, based on the Finnish model, for example, how popular will it be if it is implemented in Russia the way it is in Finland?
If it is implemented competently, then it all comes down to price. Most of my clients, perhaps I do not have such a representative sample, but in general people say the cost of education they find comfortable is up to 100,000 rubles. 100,000 is some kind of watershed. This is now, given the current exchange rate. Once upon a time, two or three years ago, people were saying: "50 at best.
To what extent are parents ready to understand that the Unified State Exam is not the only benchmark for the quality of a child's education at school?
A very small group. This is what needs to be investigated. It seems to me that everyone wants something more, but in fact everyone only cares about passing the USE. The child has to enter a University (especially a boy).
What do parents of preschoolers say most often, what is their request?
More often than not, they say: "We want to make sure that the childs motivation to study is not destroyed." Or even better: they want the child to be motivated to study, to be eager, ready and excited to learn new things and develop. But at the same time, he or she needs to be able to enter a good, solid school. It is also about the USE, so the child does not lose his or her academic skills. I keep explaining and telling them: "You see, getting into a good school in the form that exists in our reality is just a sports competition. That is why you have to prepare for it." Everything here is like sports competitions. The child may not have outstanding cognitive abilities, and it is hard for parents to accept that. Perhaps the child simply does not need to go to such a school, instead he or she would learn happily at the right level.