The experiment to introduce the Unified State Exam was first carried out in 2001. And since then, despite the fact that the Unified State Exam has become the only form of final and entrance exams since 2009, debate about its necessity has not subsided. Let's take a closer look at this problem and try to understand the disadvantages and advantages of the Unified State Exam.
Advantages.
Of course, the opportunity to take final and entrance exams at the same time is one of the main advantages of the Unified State Exam. Thus, a schoolchild from a remote outback, where the level of education leaves much to be desired, having successfully passed the Unified State Exam, can enter the best Russian universities. A graduate who has received a certificate with the results of his exams can apply to several universities at once, and for this he does not need to take exams in each.
Another equally important advantage is the objective assessment of test results. A broader rating system (100 points), instead of a five-point one, allows you to identify the best of the best.
In addition, it is believed that the Unified State Exam allows one to avoid corruption when entering universities, and the requirements for the exam, which are increasing from year to year, improve the quality of education and encourage graduates to introduce independent preparation for exams.
The advantages of the Unified State Exam are obvious, but there are also pitfalls here that cannot be ignored.
Flaws.
The Unified State Exam is a multiple-choice test. Thus, opponents of this system believe that a graduate can simply choose the correct answer at random or by process of elimination.
In addition, if in a mathematics exam the correct answer is clear in most cases, in tasks, for example, in literature or other humanities subjects, they are quite controversial and ambiguous. For many of them, in a traditional exam you can have a discussion to prove your opinion, but in the Unified State Exam you can choose only one option. Therefore, opponents of the Unified State Exam believe that tests, instead of a full-fledged exam, exclude the opportunity to prove their opinion, which affects thinking and logical skills.
However, supporters of the Unified State Exam insist that in every test there is a part “C”, in which the examinee needs to prove his position, his opinion.
Supporters of the Unified State Exam insist that the testing system helped avoid corruption when entering universities and taking final exams. But his opponents insist that corruption has not gone away, but has only moved to a new level. Some universities, when accepting the results of the Unified State Exam, arrange additional exams, during which, as they say, you can “get on your paw.”
In addition, every year during the exam period, messages appear every now and then that have already appeared on the Internet in unknown ways. It is not uncommon for teachers to take tests instead of their students.
And finally, the main argument against the Unified State Exam. In fact, during the testing of tests, it is assessed whether the examinees gave the correct answer or made a mistake. Thus, even an untalented graduate can successfully pass the exam simply by guessing the correct answers. At the same time, there are often cases when truly gifted, erudite children fail the exam. That is, it is impossible to test erudition using dry tests, and part “C” in the tests, which is so praised by supporters of the Unified State Exam, is unable to reveal the giftedness of a student.
The list of advantages and disadvantages of the Unified State Exam can be continued endlessly, and both are right in their own way. The Unified State Exam is, of course, a graduate’s main ticket to a prestigious university, where he can receive a truly high-quality education. But with all this, this system, despite all the improvements, has a number of its shortcomings.
Despite the fact that the Unified State Exam was introduced as an experiment back in 2001, and it became mandatory for all schoolchildren to graduate in 2009, the controversy surrounding the advantages and disadvantages of the innovation does not subside. Teachers, parents and schoolchildren themselves opposed the Unified State Exam. Entire cities wrote open letters to the president; requests to cancel the reform were signed by school directors, institute researchers, honored workers of science and higher education, academicians and corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Education.
They started talking about the Unified State Exam again in connection with the proposal of schoolgirls to cancel the unified exam. During a “direct line” with Vladimir Putin, three students from one of the schools in St. Petersburg said that the final exam on tickets makes it possible to further reveal the knowledge of graduates, and asked the president to consider the possibility of refusing to conduct the Unified State Exam. Putin agreed that the system needs to be improved. Similar statements are heard from officials at various levels, but things are still there.
Beneficial, but not for everyone
The shortcomings of the Unified State Exam today are no different from those that were talked about a year, two or three ago. “All the challenges that the unified exam faces remain the same,” says Vladimir Burmatov, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Education. “The situation is only getting worse year after year.”
Burmatov considers corruption to be the first and main drawback of the Unified State Examination. “There are three types of corrupt business on the Unified State Exam,” explains the deputy. - The first type is the existence of numerous sites that sell supposedly up-to-date answers to the exam, and we understand that if they receive these answers, they are somehow connected with those who store the answer database, that is, with officials of the Ministry of Education. Another type of such business is the existence of companies that engage in so-called guaranteed preparation for the Unified State Exam. We recently caught the hand of Deputy Minister of Education Klimov, who came during his working hours to participate in the presentation of one of these commercial companies.”
Solutions manuals are also a way of corruption on the Unified State Examination. Vladimir Burmatov gives an example: “You can go to any bookstore and see solution books for the Unified State Exam, the authors of which are the officials of the Ministry of Education themselves, they themselves put the stamps of the organizations under their jurisdiction on these manuals, and publishing houses are ready to pay a lot of money to sell these solution books , because they have a bar on them. This is, at a minimum, a conflict of interest clause.”
Demonstration of the operation of a video surveillance system for the progress of the Unified State Examination in city schools at the Communications Network Management Center. Photo: Svetlana Kholyavchuk / TASS
Indeed, such manuals are sold in bookstores, and online bookstores also offer a huge number of solution books for the Unified State Exam. For example, the bestseller of one large online retailer for preparing for the exam is “Russian Language. Grade 11. 50 standard options for exam papers to prepare for the Unified State Exam.” The author of the manual is Alexander Yuryevich Biserov, who holds the position of deputy head of the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science. To prepare for the exam using the manual of a high-ranking official will cost 252 rubles - a good price for a paperback publication on newsprint.
Every year more and more fabulous sums are spent on conducting the exam. The expert report prepared by the public movement Obrnadzor provides the following figures: last year, a record amount of 1,240,643,800 rubles was allocated from the federal part of the budget for the organization and conduct of the Unified State Exam 2014, which is four times more than in 2013 .
However, the level of organization has not changed much. “We already spend more than a billion rubles a year on the Unified State Examination. The number of scandals and violations increases every year, despite these unprecedented measures. Meanwhile, this money comes out of our pockets,” comments Vladimir Burmatov.
Killer exam
We seem to have become accustomed to a terrible fact: since the end of May, the media have begun to write about a wave of suicides among high school students. Some did not pass the exam, others passed but did not receive the results. “Look, the Unified State Exam is being held in the mode of a military special operation, this is not an exaggeration, it really is so. District police officers are on duty, metal detectors are installed, video cameras are installed, there are observers in the classrooms, and schoolchildren are escorted to the toilet. Absolutely incredible hysteria is being whipped up around this,” notes Burmatov.
The rules for taking the exam change literally every year. The system is being debugged, but at this time schoolchildren and, importantly, teachers simply do not have time to adapt.
Impact on education
Discussion of the destructive consequences of the Unified State Exam for education has already become commonplace. “There is such a law: within one task it is impossible to check the achievement of different goals,” comments Alexander Abramov, candidate of pedagogical sciences, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Education. “The final exam is a test for the presence of elements of general culture, and admission to a university is a test of the level of pre-professional training, that is, a completely different task is solved within the framework of this exam.”
Experts believe that a person whose knowledge has been tested using a test should not be admitted to university. “All universities in the world, in addition to national tests, conduct their own university tests,” says Professor Alexander Logunov, Dean of the Faculty of History, Political Science and Law of the Russian State University for the Humanities. “You will be screened out based on your scores when submitting documents, but if you want to study at a higher institution, also write an introductory paper.”
Students before taking the Unified State Exam in English in one of the Moscow schools. Photo: Sergey Fadeichev / TASS
Logunov adds that testing reveals only two things: “the student’s information stock and the ability to quickly remember the required fact. You can’t check anything else with the test,” the expert is sure.
“The Unified State Exam demonstrates a decline in the quality of education and becomes an indicator that the teaching in schools has become worse,” says Burmatov. - A classic example of this is the forced reduction of minimum scores in Russian and mathematics last year. In addition, we have now introduced a basic and specialized exam in mathematics, because some eleventh-graders are not able to solve a problem for the sixth grade.”
On the website of Rosobrnadzor they write that “the basic level exam is not a lightweight version of the profile one, it is focused on a different goal and a different direction in the study of mathematics.” As the general director of Expert magazine, dean of the Higher School of Journalism, Alexander Privalov, writes in his column, “many merry fellows have already conducted a simple experiment: they gave final exam tests to junior high school students, and even preschoolers (here with a reservation - gifted ones). The result, they say, is always the same: most children score a C.”
We are talking specifically about a basic level test in mathematics. School graduates, future university students, are asked to solve the following problem: “25 school graduates took the Unified State Examination in Physics, which is a third of the total number of graduates. How many graduates of this school did not pass the physics exam?
Educational goals are replaced - instead of full-fledged education, eleven years of school turn into preparation for the “most important test.” “I recently saw the book “Preparing for the Unified State Exam” for second or third grade,” says Burmatov. - The emasculation of education begins already from primary school, this, of course, is a disgrace. A unified exam is just a way to test knowledge, and there should be no training for the Unified State Exam from the first grade.”
The President noted during the “direct line” that the Ministry of Education and Science is trying to correct the weaknesses of the unified exam, the final essay has been returned to schools, leading Russian universities have been given the right to conduct their own exams and take into account the results of school Olympiads when enrolling applicants. Experts think this is not enough.
“Unlike Vladimir Vladimirovich, I believe that the improvement he calls for is a meaningless process,” shares Alexander Abramov. - Because it is impossible to improve the exam with such a structure and such views. “Putin used the word ‘discipline’, and indeed, we are preparing lazy, illiterate scolders, so the consequences will be terrible.”
Back in the 2000s, the idea arose to replace the usual final exams with unified state ones. And a few years later it came to life. To this day, there is debate about the effectiveness of this method of monitoring the level of knowledge among graduates. Some people encourage this rating system, others condemn it. But, despite this, the experiment continues, and we will try to consider the main pros and cons in relation to the unified state exam.
Talking about advantages of the Unified State Exam it is necessary to remind about increasing the chances of admission to a higher educational institution for absolutely all graduates, regardless of their place of residence. This means that schoolchildren living, for example, in rural areas will have equal rights with urban graduates. Moreover, when preparing for the unified exams, it will make sense to master subjects better and of higher quality. Perhaps the most important advantage of the Unified State Exam is its objective approach to assessing a student’s knowledge when entering a university. The established passing grade allows the applicant to enroll in several faculties of one university at once or allows the submission of applications to several universities at the same time. Thus, with the entry into force of the unified exam, the flow of school graduates has increased significantly. And, therefore, it appeared due to the tightening of passing criteria. For example, the most prestigious universities now have their own entrance exams, which must be taken separately from the submitted Unified State Examination results.
Talking about disadvantages of the unified exam, many skeptics doubt the real objectivity of assessing mastery of material in a subject using tests. Since the correct answer to most questions can be found not with the help of exact knowledge, but by the method of “poke” or elimination, it turns out that the student’s ability to think logically is assessed and theoretical skills have nothing to do with it. As a result, with scores in hand as a final exam report, many graduates bring a numerical quotient of their intellectual abilities to the admissions committee.
There are also opinions that the assessment of knowledge in the field of social and humanities disciplines is not entirely adequate, because the test tasks presented on them are subject to discussion. If previously a graduate could tell theoretical material on these subjects, while expressing his own opinion on the problem, or conduct reasoning on this or that issue, now from several variations of answers it is necessary to choose one correct one. This method narrows the student’s ability to think broadly, which is so necessary in the future for writing coursework and dissertations at a university.
According to sociological research, it turned out that opponents of the Unified State Exam are mainly those who were not affected by this innovation - these are graduates of previous years, but their percentage is much smaller than those who advocate this form of school certification exam. However, today the methodology for conducting the Unified State Examination and the quality of its preparation are not yet at the highest level, most likely due to its relative novelty.
The obvious decrease in the activity of opponents of the Unified State Exam is partly explained by fatigue (tired of giving obvious counterarguments), and most importantly, by fatalism: in the era of the dominance of the vertical of power, attempts to seriously oppose it are a hopeless matter. And besides, the new minister Dmitry Livanov made statements that seemed to take into account many serious objections. - It has finally been recognized that the Unified State Exam in its classical test form is not applicable in the humanities. The possibility of dividing the Unified State Exam in mathematics into two levels is being discussed - compulsory and specialized (and this is already a step towards separating final and entrance exams). Finally, the idea is repeated that the Unified State Exam is not the only criterion: it is necessary to create a portfolio of student achievements (however, what this is is not yet explained).
In discussions with many people closely associated with education (including many with very famous names), I often hear: “Don’t you understand that the Unified State Exam will not be abolished? Only partial changes can and should be demanded.” - I don't understand.
I don’t understand, firstly, because, as far as I know, the Law “On the introduction of unanimity in Russia”, and, most importantly, the Law “On the abolition of common sense in Russia” (including articles on the categorical ban on civil servants admitting mistakes and an article on the ban be smarter today than yesterday) may be prepared, but not yet signed. And secondly, reforming the education system is an undertaking on an especially large scale. All numerous risks must be calculated most carefully. Therefore, ongoing professional discussion is necessary. You cannot follow the “Cut seven times, measure once” scheme.
I will defend the following point of view. The concept of the Unified State Exam and its implementation is based on many false premises. Therefore, the Unified State Examination system cannot be improved in principle. A new system of both final exams and admission rules must be created.
The main debatable issue today is the question of “pros” and “cons”. Do you have an opinion: there are more “pros” than “cons”? Let's check.
ABOUT THE ADVANTAGES OF THE USE
Strictly speaking, this topic is not mine. Convinced supporters of the Unified State Exam (if any) must prepare a serious report convincingly justifying their position. I will mainly limit myself to comments on the “pros” that are most often mentioned.
Plus the first one is the anti-corruption effect. We need to start with this, because ultimately it is dissatisfaction with the old system of entrance exams with bribes and telephone rights that is the main reason for both the origin and the relative longevity of the Unified State Exam.
Many representatives of higher education say: they agree with the introduction of the Unified State Exam only because with the destruction of the old system they got rid of the constant headache of conducting exams and from constant accusations of corruption. But the expected result is clearly not achieved. The corrupt officials in higher education have more than compensated for their losses. Extortion for tests and exams throughout all years of study, custom paid coursework and dissertations have become almost the norm. The opacity of enrollment procedures gave rise to scandals with “dead souls”, fake Olympiad winners and beneficiaries.
A new large corruption zone has formed - everything related to passing the Unified State Exam. The draconian measures taken this year have not led to success. I will never believe that out of 900,000 test takers, there were only 3-4 hundred intruders who went online or used mobile phones during the exam. According to many eyewitness accounts, the practice of inappropriately obtaining correct answers in its many forms is fully preserved.
The lack of sterility during the Unified State Examination is confirmed by Rosobrnadzor, which recognizes the presence of emissions, i.e. suspiciously high results in a number of regions. But for an objective assessment, it is necessary to identify outliers in individual schools, districts, social groups, and among influential parents. Such a detailed analysis has not been carried out. Full statistical and analytical reports on the results have never been published.
The second plus is democratization: the number of students from the provinces who entered elite universities in Moscow and St. Petersburg has increased.
This in itself cannot be a goal. It would make more sense to focus on creating first-class universities, evenly distributed throughout the country. Today, the goal of “elite” universities is to prepare the future “elite” of the country, and this requires selecting the best future students from all over the country, regardless of place of residence; patient and very serious work for both students and teachers. Judging by international ratings, this task has not been solved. As for the increase in the number of students from the provinces, we should find out whether this is due to the high social status of their parents. I will add that the founding fathers of the Unified State Exam have no reason to be excessively proud. In Soviet times, when a very strict system of large competitions was in effect, about 40% of Muscovites and 60% of provincials studied at the Mechanics and Mathematics Department of Moscow State University.
Plus the third is a dramatic simplification of the admission procedure. There are three “achievements” here.
The first - the possibility of passing the exam without going to the university - is important, since with the very high cost of tickets, mass migration of applicants is practically impossible. The system of compulsory departure was preserved in a few universities that retained the right to creative tests. In principle, you can go further: for example, academician Kikoin noted in his memoirs that in the difficult 20s there were commissions of Moscow University conducting exams in other cities.
Another “achievement” - the ability to apply to many universities at once - is doubtful. Still, by the end of school, the range of interests should be localized and not extend from agriculture and dentistry to management and nuclear physics.
The third thing - the sharp increase in the number of universities and students - is already assessed sharply negatively. It is difficult to get rid of the impression that, to a large extent, the Unified State Exam was consciously supported precisely during the years of mass expansion of paid education in universities by numerous interested parties. To a large extent, it was the Unified State Exam that became the catalyst for a sharp increase in the number of students, the creation of a black market for the sale of diplomas, and a sharp decline in the qualifications of university graduates.
The fourth plus is the reduction of stress during exams.
Indeed, in the later times of the USSR, they passed 6-7 exams to obtain a certificate of secondary education, and after a short break, another 3-5 entrance exams to universities. But the modern system is unacceptably primitive; 2-3 exams with little content are already too much. As the price of a question in these exams has increased dramatically, so has the stress.
Human capabilities should not be underestimated. A massive Soviet-era experiment, in which tens of millions took many sometimes rigorous exams, did not reveal widespread severe injuries with irreversible health consequences. Life in general consists of constantly overcoming difficulties; you have to go through many difficult trials. You need to prepare for this from early childhood. Exams play an important educational role: knowledge is systematized; a sense of responsibility, regular work skills, and the habit of constant self-control are formed. Therefore, we need to return to the issue of final and entrance exams again. In general, we should talk about creating an effective and realistic testing system that operates continuously throughout all years of training. The best remedy for stress is constant training. An exam is not a holiday, but it is the norm.
Here, in fact, is the entire list of advantages most often mentioned by supporters of the Unified State Exam. Watching the development of events, I could not get rid of the feeling of ambiguity and the presence of some kind of mystery. - It was felt that the influential initiators of the Unified State Exam had a super task. Some kind of secret knowledge, which they do not talk about for one reason or another.
I recently discovered confirmation of this hypothesis on the Internet. It turns out that the leaders of the Higher School of Economics - rector Y.I. Kuzminov, scientific director E.G. Yasin, president A.N. Shokhin - played a very important role in the birth of the Unified State Exam.
Strictly speaking, the fact that the Higher School of Economics is the general headquarters of education reform is not news. But the complete monopoly of the Higher School of Economics on the knowledge of all truths in education is unnatural - there is no reason for this. Perhaps this school really is the highest, but for some reason the Russian economy is not the most advanced. It is unlikely that there are no people and structures outside the HSE whose opinions should be listened to. In fact, the extraordinary influence of the Higher School of Economics on education is the result of the most active use of administrative resources. What is new is the announcement of the list of founding fathers of the Unified State Examination.
But something else is more significant. Evgeniy Grigorievich Yasin formulated the ultimate goal of the Unified State Exam: “The independence of the courts and the Unified State Exam are in a sense the same thing. This is an “open access procedure”, i.e. interaction according to mandatory rules (NG of March 12 of this year, “Unified State Exam without Trust”). In other words, the Unified State Exam is an important educational measure: society must learn to live by the same rules in the spirit of the liberal tradition. Thus, the Unified State Exam has one more (the main one from the point of view of its ideologists) plus.
Fifth plus (“Yasin’s plus”): the Unified State Exam is one of the key areas for introducing uniform rules of conduct for all in Russia.
The particular importance of the Unified State Exam was emphasized by now Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, who several years ago stated that the Unified State Exam is “Tool No. 1” in creating social elevators.
EGEIZATION AS A SYSTEM ERROR
I can briefly express my attitude towards the Unified State Exam by combining two well-known quotes. Our contemporary, the outstanding Pushkin scholar V.S. Nepomnyashchy put it this way: “The Unified State Exam is a monstrous crime.” Another quote belongs to a famous person of the 19th century - Maurice Talleyrand: “This is more than a crime. This is mistake". Apparently, the meaning of this phrase is that there are crimes, the particular danger of which is a long aftereffect with serious consequences.
In the case of the Unified State Examination, the corpus delicti is as follows: official negligence leading to grave consequences on an especially large scale. To reduce the scale of the disaster and reduce the aftereffect time, it is necessary to urgently correct errors. In my opinion, we are talking about a chain of wrong decisions and actions that were the consequences of major systemic errors. By system error I mean an error that initially predetermines the depravity of the system being created. In other words, these are the key mistakes of the designers, which led to the fact that the created structure cannot meet the set goals and is doomed to numerous defects.
As a rule, system errors are hidden and their detection is not easy. Yasin’s unexpected statement about the analogy between the situations with the Unified State Exam and the independence of the courts is a kind of self-exposure session. This is a good hint: the direction of searching for system errors made during the Unified State Examination of the Russian Federation is indicated.
Admittedly, the extremely important task of creating independent courts that determine the uniformity of legal rules for everyone is far from being achieved. Why? There are two main reasons. This is a massive lack of legal consciousness. And the eternal conviction of the Russian authorities is that, for reasons of political expediency, it is possible, and often necessary, to slightly exceed their powers. “If you can’t, but you really want to, then you can.”
This once again proves that there are no simple and quick solutions to complex social problems: “Fear simple solutions!” Only a reasonably and rationally organized method of trial and error leads to a good result, and this inevitably requires a very long time, during which a critical mass gradually emerges in society, based on the principle “If you can’t, but you really want to, then you can’t.”
In this sense, the situations with the Unified State Exam and the independence of the courts are indeed similar. But the problem of the Unified State Examination is much more complicated. To create an adequate testing system, it is necessary to at least partially have answers to the questions: “What is knowledge?”, “How to make sure that key knowledge is available?” When applied to school, this is, of course, simpler than the eternal question “What is truth?” But finding answers to them is a very, very difficult matter, requiring high professionalism, considerable time, flexibility, and caution.
Unlike Western countries, whose experience is cited by supporters of the Unified State Exam (usually unfoundedly), Russia does not have such a long history (more than 100 years) of testing and development; there is no corresponding culture. Therefore, creating a fundamentally new system of nationwide testing in just a few years is a task that was impossible to solve from the very beginning. Moreover, grave consequences are inevitable. One of many historical examples of looking ahead is the Great Leap Forward in China during the Cultural Revolution; the result was exactly the opposite of what was expected.
The above leads to the formulation of the first systemic mistake of the founding fathers of the Unified State Exam: unrealistic goal setting.
In Soviet times, the de facto rule “The plans of the party and government cannot fail to be fulfilled” brought great trouble. They can only be slightly underfulfilled.” The troubles with the Unified State Examination are largely due to the fact that in the era of the dominance of the “vertical of power” the mentioned rule is in full force.
The second systemic error is the complete dominance of administrative-command methods (in modern language, this is the excessive use of administrative resources to “prove” that “the Unified State Exam has more advantages than disadvantages”).
There are plenty of arguments in favor of this thesis. All decisions favorable to the triumphal march of the Unified State Exam across Russian expanses passed through all authorities without hindrance and quickly. For example, the law on the Unified State Exam passed the State Duma, the Federation Council and was signed by the president. The experiment was initially doomed to overwhelming success. It is significant, for example, that the growth chart for the number of regions participating in the experiment (compiled in 2001) was strictly observed, although the number of recorded defects was very large. There is no need to talk about the quality of the experiment. The law has been confirmed: all pedagogical experiments end in fantastic success, and the corresponding reforms end in disastrous failure. All the defects of the Unified State Exam, recognized today by Minister D. Livanov, have been known for a long time.
A focus on power administration inevitably requires a specific personnel policy. Loyal executors (“party soldiers”) are needed, regardless of their professionalism, conviction in the correct choice of goal, and objectivity. The other side of the matter is ignoring the opinions of opponents and squeezing dissenters and doubters out of the project.
Thus, the third systemic error is the negative personnel selection of participants in the Unified State Examination project (managers at all levels, developers, performers).
An inevitable consequence of the highlighted principles is lack of professionalism when solving specific problems. The largest defects that emerged during the campaign for the Unified State Examination of Russia are as follows:
Absolutization of the Unified State Exam (i.e., a gross violation of the boundaries of its applicability), expressed in giving the Unified State Exam a fateful character, since the fate of a school graduate depends on just two or three exams; establishing a direct relationship between assessing the quality of work in the education system and the results of the Unified State Examination;
Unjustified and ill-conceived complete breakdown of the old test system: combining final and entrance exams (despite the fundamental difference in goals), complete abandonment of oral exams, distrust of the teacher, etc.;
Primitivization and low quality of CMMs (control and measuring materials);
Failure to organize objective and fair examination procedures.
To summarize, the policy of Unified State Examination can be briefly described: it is neo-Bolshevism under the banner of liberalism. The logic of the Unified State Examination is as follows: a great task is being solved and the shortcomings of the Unified State Examination are insignificant side effects. “They cut down the forest and the chips fly.”
NOW ABOUT THE MINUSES
The first disadvantage: with the introduction of the Unified State Exam, a system was created that corrupts Russian society. Since only 3-4 Unified State Examinations are given a fateful character (the stake is admission or non-admission to a university), both students and parents are ready to do anything to improve their results. The disadvantage of the position of teachers and managers at all levels is that the assessment of their work and salaries are directly dependent on the results of the Unified State Exam. The picture is complemented by recent decisions on assessing the work of governors: one of the criteria is the results of the region on the Unified State Examination. As a result, a most favorable environment has been created for mass fraud and conformity.
Minus two: there has been a radical change in the goals of the school. From the most important human-forming and nation-forming institution, it is quickly turning into an institute for training for the Unified State Exam. In high school, the main focus is on preparing for the Unified State Exam. Externships and tutoring are widely developed - even to the point of mass non-attendance to lessons: students are busy preparing for the Unified State Exam. With the introduction of the GIA in the 9th grade, the same fate awaits the basic school.
The third disadvantage is the degradation of students and teachers. This is a consequence of a sharp reduction in the number of tests and their primitivization. The consequence of EGEization, the refusal of oral exams and dialogues is this: a generation of illiterate, lazy scribblers with kaleidoscopic, unsystematic thinking is growing up. The forced concentration of teachers on the problem of preparing for the Unified State Exam has sharply limited the growth of their professional skills.
The fourth minus is a noticeable decrease in the level of readiness for studying in higher education. There are many reasons for this. But the contribution of the Unified State Examination is great. Weak graduates leave the school. With the simplification of admission procedures, the possibilities for strict professional selection were sharply limited.
Finally, the fifth minus: during the so-called. modernization of education, quite a lot of money (how much?), and, most importantly, a non-renewable resource - time, was wasted ineptly. We have completely lost 10 years for the development of the national education system. But they accelerated the processes of its degradation.
The scale of the disaster is described above. It should only be added that the set goals - the introduction of uniform rules for all, the eradication of corruption, the creation of social elevators - have not been achieved. Teachers were excluded from the exam, but due to the widespread spread of “pranks” there is no need to talk about independence of assessment and objectivity. Chernomyrdin’s teaching was developed: “We wanted the best, but it turned out much worse than always.”
Returning to the beginning of the article, I must note that posing the question of pros and cons is incorrect. The main question is different: what did the Unified State Exam bring more - benefit or harm? My position is clear. Of course, harm, since the Unified State Exam has sharply accelerated the processes of degradation of the Russian education system.
There are two possible ways of improvement. I consider the path of permanent improvement proposed by the Ministry of Education and Science unacceptable due to the fundamental irremovability of the organic defects of the Unified State Examination (see above). This will be meaningless and merciless improvement. The improvement experiments carried out in recent years are reminiscent of a highly humanistic and fascinating sport - chopping a cat's tail piece by piece. I feel sorry for the “cat”. Moreover, in our case we are talking about the fate of millions of people and the progress of the country. The second option is the highest measure of improvement: replacing the Unified State Exam system with a fundamentally different system.
What will be the choice? It is convenient to formulate proposals in this regard in the form of answers to two key questions.
1) Should the Unified State Exam be cancelled?
Answer: yes. It is clear that only the president can make such a decision. I would venture to suggest that, from the point of view of Vladimir Putin, there are three serious arguments in favor of abandoning the Unified State Exam:
The central point of the election campaign is the creation of 25 million high-tech jobs by 2020. It is impossible to implement this program and the ambitious rearmament program without decisive action in the field of education and science. Therefore, maintaining the Unified State Examination system, which primitivizes the school and does not allow preparing and selecting the most prepared students, is impossible. It is difficult to decide to cancel the Unified State Examination. But it is necessary. Otherwise, we will have to admit that the election program is a bad joke.
The ineffectiveness of the existing higher education system is generally recognized. The inevitable reduction in the number of universities and students will entail high competition. The selection system based on the results of the Unified State Exam and Olympiads does not work in high competitions: there are too few parameters.
Numerous shortcomings of the Unified State Examination are obvious; Therefore, most of society (including professional communities) opposes the Unified State Exam. In these circumstances, the emphasis on tightening administrative resources and ignoring public opinion sharply aggravates the clearly emerging crisis of confidence in the authorities: the problem of the Unified State Exam becomes a political problem.
2) How to cancel the Unified State Exam?
The question can be reformulated: “How to get off the needle” of the Unified State Examination, which the education system has been “put on”?
The rules of the game must be formed before the start of the game. Therefore, by the end of 2012, temporary rules for conducting final and entrance exams should be developed and adopted. The most natural solution is admission to most universities without exams; in those few cases when high competition arises, quite serious admission tests are organized.
A permanent scheme is developed over 2-3 years. As for the school, the main task is to create a system of OKO (organized control of learning), which provides for the creation of control tasks and tests that are valid throughout all years of study.
Urgent measures are fundamental changes to the recently adopted state program for the development of education until 2020 and the draft Law on Education. The state program is in no way development-oriented: no clear results are indicated. The draft Law in its existing form is focused on preserving modern policy in education, despite its obvious flaws. It is also clear that the approved school standards, as well as other initiatives related to the Unified State Exam, will have to be abandoned. There are few hunters who are willing to admit mistakes. But still, a terrible ending is better than endless horror.
So: the abolition of the Unified State Exam is a decisive step towards a much-needed new educational policy. But this is already a subject for a large special discussion (see, for example, my article “New Educational Policy”, posted on the website of the Expert magazine).
The idea of replacing the usual final school exams with unified state exams came at the beginning of the 21st century in Russia. Only nine years later this program was put into practice. Throughout this period, there was heated debate about how effective this program was. This innovation still has fans and opponents today. This can be explained since every phenomenon always has both pros and cons.
Advantages of the Unified State Exam
What is the main advantage of the unified state exams? The fact is that they significantly increase the chances of admission to higher education institutions for all graduates, regardless of where they live. Thanks to these exams, applicants living in remote areas, where the level of education is, of course, lower than in big cities, are protected from discrimination. Such students receive an excellent incentive to study subjects better. It’s also good that the textbooks in all schools are the same, and information from the Internet is available to everyone. One more undeniable advantage of the Unified State Exam can be named. This is the objectivity of the assessments that were obtained during its passing upon admission to any higher Russian institution.
Currently, applicants can apply for admission to several higher education institutions at the same time. Recently, many prestigious higher education institutions have also administered their own entrance exams, which applicants must take separately.
Disadvantages of the Unified State Exam
As for critics of the Unified State Exam, they are skeptical about the objectivity of the unified state exam. This opinion is explained by the fact that in a large number of cases the correct answer in the proposed test can be selected using the elimination method. It turns out that not only the graduate’s knowledge is subject to assessment, but also his ability to think logically. As a result, we obtain an estimate of the graduate’s intellectual quotient. Many people express the opinion that test exams related to the humanities, as well as social disciplines, are not relevant at all, since many issues can be discussed. When conducting a regular exam, a student is given the opportunity to express several of his opinions on a topic, then, according to the rules of the unified state exam, a graduate can choose only one option, which, quite possibly, is controversial.
Public opinion polls have shown that there are slightly fewer people who are opponents of the Unified State Exam than those who are its supporters. This may be due to the fact that graduates from previous years are more accustomed to traditional exams. The second reason is that so far, the Unified State Examination methodology is not perfect due to the novelty of this idea.