Kremlin pushes patriotism in class. Teachers and parents push back.
-
Fred Weir Special correspondent
| Moscow
Every Monday morning at 9 o鈥檆lock, Russian students of all grades have been required to attend a new course: Conversations About Important Things.
Announced over the summer, the course is intended to instill deeper patriotic feelings among students, and the Kremlin regards the task as so urgent that President Vladimir Putin himself of the opening lesson. Its supporters see it as a nondoctrinaire way to redress the lack of patriotic education in Russian schools since the Soviet collapse.
But its detractors view it as another giant step on the road back to totalitarianism. The announcement of the new classes led to considerable pushback from parents鈥� groups and human rights organizations which argued that propaganda has no place in the school and, at the very least, students should be permitted to opt out of the new course.
Why We Wrote This
A story focused onWhen the Russian Ministry of Education rolled out classroom discussions of current events, some parents and teachers pushed back. They worry the state is trying to impose its values on students.
suggest that the Ministry of Education has revised the course material to respond to parents鈥� objections, to remove explicit mentions of the military operation in Ukraine, NATO, and the honorable nature of dying for Russia. Indeed, for the lessons issued by the ministry consists of mainly saccharine talking points, such as 鈥淩ussia and the world鈥� and 鈥渢he day of labor.鈥�
But analysts who鈥檝e taken a deeper look at the teaching materials being recommended by the ministry say the focus will clearly be on historical themes that stress national consolidation in the face of outside efforts to sow disunity, putting the national good above one鈥檚 own life, and seeing the state as the embodiment of all that鈥檚 trustworthy.
鈥淭his process of [reintroducing patriotic indoctrination] has been underway for some time,鈥� says Nikolai Petrov, an expert on Russia with Chatham House in London. 鈥淚nstead of a range of textbooks there is now only one approved version, especially in history, and the range of accepted interpretations is increasingly limited. ... Parents are different these days [from Soviet times]. Any body of government is interested in avoiding political scandals. When they encounter public resistance, they will try to pacify it. But, in many cases, they haven鈥檛 really changed their minds. They just set out to get the results they want by other means.鈥�
鈥淭he state has no right to do this鈥�
In recent years, especially since Russia鈥檚 confrontation with the West grew acute following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, restoring Soviet-style patriotic education has been a constant topic of debate among Russian educators and politicians.
Universal military-style cadet training has been restored, and this year a pilot project was launched in 10 Russian regions , whom many teachers fear will bring an ideological focus. Another development that activists complain of is called Big Change, reminiscent of the Soviet Young Pioneers which, although said to be voluntary, will have the effect of increasing the state鈥檚 role in the upbringing of children.
Russian Education Minister Sergei Kravtsov insisted in a recent interview that it鈥檚 not old-fashioned indoctrination, but a 鈥渟et of conversations about events, people, their deeds, and ideas ... not a lecture, but a discussion.鈥�
The lesson from the Conversations About Important Things course that Mr. Putin on Sept. 1 mostly steered clear of the war in Ukraine, and stressed to students that cultivating individual excellence was the path to Russian national strength. But in responses to students, he veered into some of his own favorite themes.
He lamented the quality of education in Ukraine, saying that he was amazed to learn that students in Ukraine 鈥渄o not even know that the Crimean Bridge exists. They believe it is a fake. ... They have no clue, no idea that Ukraine and Russia used to be part of a single state, the Soviet Union,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he Communist Party, which was in power back then, formed union republics, including Ukraine, and transferred a large number of historic Russian lands, including Donbas, to Ukraine, although Donbas residents did not want that.鈥� Mr. Putin鈥檚 remarks are controversial personal opinions, but presented as teaching material they are prime exhibits for the critics鈥� case against this course.
Anastasia Kuznetsova, a human rights activist and founder of the independent Parents of Russia association, argues that the new lessons will undermine an important post-Soviet gain, in which the family became chiefly responsible for deciding what values should be most important for children.
鈥淭he state has no right to do this,鈥� she says. 鈥淔irst they decided to introduce these classes, and now they are developing their plans on how to do it and what to teach. We are categorically against this. Children should form their ideas under the influence of family. If these lessons are going to take place, they should not be obligatory. ... Under the law, children have the right to opt out. Teachers who use threats or insist that pupils must attend do not understand the law. Many parents don鈥檛 know it either. It鈥檚 important to expand awareness of parents鈥� rights.鈥�
Press reports suggest that in some areas parents have been granted the opportunity to withdraw their children from the lessons, which the ministry insists are 鈥渆xtracurricular鈥� activities. But in a recent interview with the Tass news agency, Education Minister Kravtsov said that while students will not be graded for the Conversations class, skipping the lesson would be punishable. 鈥淓xtracurricular activities are a mandatory part of the education program,鈥� he said. Mr. Kravtsov added that the subject of the 鈥渟pecial military operation鈥� in Ukraine would certainly figure in the classes.
A tough lesson for teachers
Vladimir Volkov, a history teacher in a town north of Moscow, says he well remembers Soviet-era patriotic education, which included constant military training and civil defense drills. It鈥檚 all coming back, he says. 鈥淓verything is viewed as preparation for war, with the idea that there will be a war and students will take part in it. The principal figure is a man with an assault rifle and the main idea is that everyone should learn to defend their motherland. ... Students don鈥檛 seem to react much to this. They have their own lives. The majority seem to regard such lessons as a game, something that just isn鈥檛 real.鈥�
Many teachers may not be ready, or even know what may be expected of them in delivering the new lessons.
鈥淚鈥檝e talked with quite a few of my fellow teachers about this,鈥� says Tatiana Chervenko, a math teacher and member of the Alliance of Teachers trade union. 鈥淥ne said she will just talk with students about Russia as a country of possibilities in general for the full hour. Others seem to take it seriously and are trying to implement the guidelines. ...聽
鈥淎 lot will depend on how teachers implement the material. I had a chat with one of my son鈥檚 teachers聽鈥� he鈥檚 in the first grade聽鈥� and she said that not all parents liked the idea of these classes, so she intended to use the hour to show the kids pictures of nature. But we heard that another teacher was telling children that the West is bad, that there are Nazis in Ukraine, and Russia is opposing that. In the Alliance of Teachers, we plan to go on opposing this order, with the aim of getting it canceled. We say so openly, but a lot of people remain silent because they are scared,鈥� she says.
Experts say that Russia鈥檚 Education Ministry is in the process of rewriting textbooks and plans to introduce a whole new curriculum, including patriotic education, by next year. It鈥檚 not clear where all of this is leading, or even if there is any comprehensive set of ideas behind it, but it appears that the present mood of war is stifling debate and giving momentum to nationalist and pro-military voices.
鈥淐learly the war is driving the changes in education right now,鈥� says Mr. Petrov, the Russia expert. 鈥淚n these conditions it鈥檚 much easier to pressure teachers to teach in certain ways, and not in others.鈥�
