Teacher Education in Russia: Past, Present, and Future 9780367343644, 9781032048451, 9780429325281

This book examines the history, recent developments, and direction of travel of Russian teacher education. It draws on s

282 39 2MB

English Pages [237] Year 2021

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Teacher Education in Russia: Past, Present, and Future
 9780367343644, 9781032048451, 9780429325281

Table of contents :
Endorsement Page
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
Preface and acknowledgements
List of contributors
The background to this book
Teacher education in Russia: historical overview
Recent developments: a case of vernacular globalisation
The structure of the book
Part 1: The past
Chapter 1: Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia
Educational developments in Russia
The origins of teacher education in Russia
Teacher education in the first half of the 19th century
The second half of the 19th century
The impact of industrialisation
Teacher education for women
The establishment of teacher training institutes
Early 20th-century developments
On religious institutions
Summary and conclusion
Chapter 2: Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985
Part 1 1917–1945
Priorities for reform in education
Reform of teacher education
Pedagogical institutes
Vocational teacher education
Institutes of public education
Teacher training in universities and the teacher education curriculum
Programmes of study in pedagogical colleges
The challenge of many nations within the Union
Tensions and contradictions
Challenges in the 1930s
The tightening grip on education
Progress and problems of the 1930s
Part 2 1945–1985
Socio-economic factors of modernisation of the educational system
Government and party initiatives on teacher training
Changes in the content of teacher education
Teacher training at the apogee of socialism
Chapter 3: From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000
The crisis of socialism and Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms
The beginning of the de-ideologisation of education
Democratisation and changes in teacher training
Teacher education in the new Russia and the initiatives of the government of Boris Yeltsin
First steps in introducing the multi-level system of higher education
Attempts to reform the content of teacher education
Part 2: The present
Chapter 4: Institutional reform in the twenty-first century and its impact on teacher education in Russia
State teacher education policy
Levels of teacher education
Federal State Educational Standards
The organisational structure of teacher education
The role of new universities in teacher education
Chapter 5: Kazan Federal University: A case study in reform
Kazan Federal University and teacher education
Teacher training traditions at Kazan Federal University
Reorganisation of teacher training in a Federal University
A flexible system of teacher education
A new infrastructure for teacher education
The Russian model of research-based teacher education
International collaboration and participation in major projects
The International Forum on Teacher Education
Chapter 6: The modernisation of Teacher Education Project: A case of vernacular globalisation
Theoretical and analytical framework
The context of ‘New Teacher Education’ policy production: intermingling of the global and local
The shaping ‘imaginary’ of higher teacher education in Russia
MoTEP as a re-contextualising of Russian higher teacher education within global policy prescriptions of reform
Teacher education as professional training
Quality: teacher education as alignment with standards
Teacher education: ‘Independently’ assessed
Teacher education: variability and/or consolidation?
Teacher Education as activity-based pedagogy
The politics of scaling: ‘Governing the Change’
New pathways and unexpected courses
Conclusion and remarks on the ‘Present Future’
Part 3: The future
Chapter 7: Where next for Russian teacher education?
The features of the pedagogical corps of Russia in the context of TALIS-2018
Challenges and problems of teacher education in Russia
Scenarios for the development of the teacher education system in Russia
Chapter 8: Russian teacher education in the global context
Globalisation and its impacts in education
Teacher professionalism and the rise of standards
Variability and flexibility of higher teacher education
The positioning of research and practice in teacher education
Chapter 9: Conclusion
The past
The present
Conclusion: towards the future

Citation preview

“We have seen a resurgence of interest in educational reform and practices in the former Soviet Union, including a spate of papers and articles that look at the nature of teaching in post-soviet states. But, there is still little recent, in-depth scholarship on teacher education. This book fills a conspicuous gap in our literature by providing a detailed and comprehensive look at R ­ ussian teacher education. The book is solidly situated in the historical context and in the English literature on Soviet and Russian education. It affords the reader an accessible but detailed synopsis of the context of the changes and transitions that have gone on in the modern period. The book clearly addresses the impact of globalisation on teacher education and the case study of KFU gives us a sense of the dynamism – e.g. addressing issues of ethnic and religious diversity – in what has often been considered a lock-step federalised system. It details how the political crisis of the late 1980s and 1990s ushered in a re-thinking of Soviet educational policies and programs, resulting in a new system that continues to be shaped by extensive federal reform efforts. The ongoing efforts to reform teacher education in the context of university system reform allow the reader to compare Russia with other nations that have engaged in broad attempts to reform teacher education.” Gerald LeTendre, Penn State College of Education, Pennsylvania State University, USA “This book takes us through a fascinating journey of the past and present of teacher education in Russia. It clearly illustrates how practice and policy in teacher education have been shaped over time through the complex interplay and influence of culture, politics, history, and economics. While it presents the uniqueness of Russia’s case, it also points to future scenarios in light of the increasing influence of globalisation – an analysis that is also relevant to understand the reality of teacher education in other jurisdictions. A valuable contribution to the field and a must-read book for all those interested in teacher education.” Maria Assunção Flores, University of Minho, Portugal

Teacher Education in Russia

This book examines the history, rcecent developments, and direction of travel of Russian teacher education. It draws on scholarly expertise and professional experience in Russia and locates the policies and practices that are discussed within the context of the continuing global reform of teacher education. Providing a rich description of the trajectory of teacher education in Russia, the book analyses the processes of change between the history, current practice, and future directions for Russian teacher education. The chapters consider the relationship between research, policy, and practice and examine the respective influences of the former USSR, of processes of wider reform in the Russian Federation since ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’, and of globalisation within education. What emerges from the book is that the Russian case is a prime example of ‘vernacular globalisation’ in teacher education. Many important insights into processes of education reform and some of the major themes in teacher education are discussed, thus providing new perspectives that are likely to be of interest to scholars and researchers of comparative education and teacher education, as well as policymakers. Ian Menter is Emeritus Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Oxford, UK, and a Senior Research Associate in the Institute of Psychology and Pedagogy at Kazan Federal University, Russia. He is a former President of the British Educational Research Association.

Routledge Research in Teacher Education The Routledge Research in Teacher Education series presents the latest research on Teacher Education and also provides a forum to discuss the latest practices and challenges in the field. Research-Informed Teacher Learning Critical Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice Edited by Lori Beckett Europeanisation in Teacher Education A Comparative Case Study of Teacher Education Policies and Practices Vasileios Symeonidis Study Abroad for Pre- and In-Service Teachers Transformative Learning on a Global Scale Laura Baecher Becoming Somebody in Teacher Education Person, Profession and Organization in a Global Southern Context Kari Kragh Blume Dahl Professional Learning and Identities in Teaching International Narratives of Successful Teachers Edited by A. Cendel Karaman and Silvia Edling Teacher Quality and Education Policy in India Understanding the Relationship Between Teacher Education, Teacher Effectiveness, and Student Outcomes Preeti Kumar and Alexander W. Wiseman Teacher Educators and their Professional Development Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future Edited by Ruben Vanderlinde, Kari Smith, Mieke Lunenberg, and Jean Murray Individual, School, and National Factors Impacting Teachers’ Workplace Learning Discourses of Informal Learning in North America and Lithuania Elena Jurasaite-O’Keefe Teacher Education in Russia Past, Present, and Future Edited by Ian Menter For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/Routledge-Research-in-Teacher-Education/book-series/RRTE

Teacher Education in Russia Past, Present, and Future Edited by Ian Menter

First published 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 selection and editorial matter, Ian Menter; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Ian Menter to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Menter, Ian, editor. Title: Teacher education in Russia: past, present and future / edited by Ian Menter. Identifiers: LCCN 2021005772 (print) | LCCN 2021005773 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367343644 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032048451 (paperback) | ISBN 9780429325281 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Teachers--Training of--Russia (Federation) | Teachers--Training of--Russia--History. Classification: LCC LB1725.R8 T43 2021 (print) | LCC LB1725. R8 (ebook) | DDC 370.71/10947--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021005772 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021005773 ISBN: 978-0-367-34364-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-04845-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-32528-1 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Straive, India


Preface and acknowledgements List of contributors Introduction IAN MENTER


The past 1 Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia

ix x 1

9 11


2 Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985



3 From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000




The present


4 Institutional reform in the twenty-first century and its impact on teacher education in Russia



5 Kazan Federal University: A case study in reform



6 The modernisation of Teacher Education Project: A case of vernacular globalisation ELENA REVYAKINA


viii  Contents PART 3

The future


7 Where next for Russian teacher education?



8 Russian teacher education in the global context



9 Conclusion





Preface and acknowledgements

This book is an outcome of several years of collaboration between colleagues at Kazan Federal University (KFU) and a UK-based teacher education researcher. The editor of the book, Ian Menter, would like to express his sincere thanks to all at KFU for their open-heartedness in this collaboration. It has been a great pleasure to work with KFU Rector, Ilshat Gafurov, with the Director of the Institute of Psychology and Education, Aydar Kalimullin, and with the Head of Department of Pedagogy, Roza Valeeva. It has also been a great opportunity to collaborate with an early career researcher, originally from Russia, Dr Elena Revyakina. When this project was first conceived and then developed (including during a three-day boat trip on the River Volga), we had no idea how the writing process would be affected by the global health events of 2020. We have brought the project to conclusion in spite of the direct as well as indirect impact of the coronavirus on some of us and our families and we now look forward to further collaboration in a healthier future world, including faceto-face meetings in Russia, the UK, or elsewhere. We are grateful to all those scholars – practitioners and researchers – who have been supportive of this project. Many of them attended the annual International Forum on Teacher Education, held at KFU over the past six years. Others have attended international conferences elsewhere where we have presented symposia based on our work. The editor and contributors express our gratitude and deep appreciation to our young researchers and translators at KFU, graduates of the Russian government funding programme Global Education Programme: Elena Semenova, Dinara Bisimbaeva, Ksenia Zavyalova, Victoria Iskru. The editor and contributors Devon, England and Kazan, Russia


Ilshat Gafurov is the Rector of Kazan Federal University (KFU); PhD in Physics and Mathematics; Doctor of Sciences in Economics; Academician of the Russian Academy of Education; Member of Parliament of the Republic of Tatarstan in Russia. He combines the careers of a researcher and an administrator, having implemented a national project of establishing a large university complex through merging seven independent educational institutions and three medical facilities. Under Gafurov’s guidance, the University is now included in thirteen subject rankings by leading international higher education ranking organisations. His rich theoretical and practical experience helped him become one of the key creators of a new model of teacher education, one that has been successfully brought to fruition at KFU. Academician Gafurov has authored over 130 books and papers, a significant part of which are dedicated to educational problems. As a scientist and administrator, he always sees them as linked with broader economic, social, and political contexts. Aydar Kalimullin is Doctor of Historical Sciences. He has been working in education for over 30 years starting his professional career as a history teacher at school and continuing as a university professor and academic leader at pedagogical university. Prof. Kalimullin has experience in managing most of the structural units of Russian higher educational institutions having served as the head of a department, dean of the faculty, rector of the pedagogical university. Dr. Kalimullin has published over 100 journal articles and books. Since 2011, he has worked on the development of the new model of teacher education in Russia, implemented at Kazan Federal University. He is known in the academic world as a member of the Expert Council of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, as well as a member of the Federal Educational and Methodological Association on Teacher Education, and a co-director of the Volga region Centre of the Russian Academy of Education. Ian Menter is a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in the UK and was President of the British Educational Research Association (BERA), 2013–15. He is Emeritus Professor of Teacher Education at the University

Contributors  xi of Oxford and was formerly the Director of Professional Programmes in the Department of Education at the University. He previously worked at the Universities of Glasgow, the West of Scotland, London Metropolitan, the West of England, and Gloucestershire. Before that he was a primary school teacher in Bristol, England. He is a Visiting Professor at three UK universities and is a Senior Research Associate in the Institute of Psychology and Education at Kazan Federal University, Russia. His main research interests are in research, policy, and practice in teacher education, including comparative studies of this topic. Recent publications include: A Companion to Research in Teacher Education (Peters, Cowie and Menter, Eds.; Springer, 2017); Learning to Teach in England and the United States (Tatto, Burn, Menter, Mutton and Thompson; Routledge, 2018); Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning to Teach – A Cross-national Study (Tatto and Menter, Eds.; Bloomsbury, 2019). Elena Revyakina is a post-doctoral researcher on a number of projects in the University College of Teacher Education Vienna (Austria) and University College Dublin (UCD) (Ireland). These focus on policy and practice relating to methodological innovation in initial teacher education, acceptance and resistance in this, and the role of organised stakeholders in such innovation. She recently completed PhD research at UCD within the National University of Ireland, with a focus on the discourses powering the field of education policy innovation in Russia, related actor mediation, and institutional accommodation in an era of globalised education reform. She now lives in Austria and has studied and worked internationally as a linguist and educator. Roza Valeeva is D.Sc. of Pedagogy, Professor, Head of Pedagogy Department at the Institute of Psychology and Education, Kazan Federal University, Russia. She is a well-known scientist in Russia in the sphere of education, the author of more than 300 scientific books and articles. She is an Honoured Scientist of the Republic of Tatarstan, and Honoured Worker of Higher Professional Education. She is the Head of the Dissertation Council on Education in KFU as well as an expert of the Federal Educational and Methodological Association on Teacher Education. She is also a Member of the Board of the International Korczak Association (IKA), and a Member of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE). She is the national representative in the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching (ISATT), Review Editor in Teacher Education, part of the journal Frontiers in Education, and Editor-in-Chief of Education & Self Development. Having had 40 years of experience in teacher education, she actively participated in the Russian Federal Project on Modernization of Teacher Education (2014–2017).

Introduction Ian Menter

As a student teacher in the 1970s, one of the subjects I studied was ‘Comparative Education’. Key texts included Edmund King’s Other Schools and Ours (King, 1967), which included a chapter entitled ‘The Soviet Union: the claims of communism’. For those of us with a particular interest in the USSR, we were recommended Soviet Education by Nigel Grant (1968). Another book I found at the time was Two Worlds of Childhood – US and USSR by the great child psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner (1970). All these texts, written of course in English, sought to explore the differences (and some similarities) between experiences of schooling and childhood in the Soviet Union with those in ‘the west’, particularly Europe and the USA. Each of these books, in its own way, ‘others’ Russia as an unfamiliar, unusual, and/or strange country. Grant acknowledges this tendency in some of his opening words: Whether we regard the USSR with fear, admiration, or regret, or any mixture of these, we must beware of jumping to conclusions. (Grant, 1968:15) But he also points out the richness which underlies much of comparative education study: Few things tell us so much about its country as its schools. In them we can see one of the most important processes of any nation – yesterday’s traditions and today’s policies moulding and developing the citizens of tomorrow. (Ibid.:15) It is my thesis that if what Grant says is true of a nation’s schools, then it is even more the case that a nation’s approaches to teacher education reveal such patterns. Here we see how a nation attempts to shape those professionals with the key responsibility for ‘moulding and developing the citizens of tomorrow’. Bronfenbrenner, in analysing the respective socialisation processes at work in the USA and the Soviet Union, including schooling, attempts to avoid

2  Ian Menter simple judgements, to avoid ‘jumping to conclusions’, as Grant put it, and focuses instead on the nature of differences. Bronfenbrenner wrote, more than 50 years ago: We believe … that the rather different Soviet approach to the upbringing of the young is not without significance for our own problems. If the Russians have gone too far in subjecting the child and his (sic) peer group to conformity to a single set of values imposed by the adult society, perhaps we have reached the point of diminishing returns in allowing excessive autonomy and in failing to utilize the constructive potential of the peer group in developing social responsibility and consideration for others. (Bronfenbrenner, 1970:165–166) The balance has doubtless changed since then, not least with the fall of communism in the one country and the rise of national populism in the other. In his seminal comparative education text, written at a similar time to Bronfenbrenner’s work, King recognises that education in the USSR has played a central part in establishing a political approach that is committed to economic improvement and social justice. However, he, like the contributors to the present volume (albeit unlike the contributors, King is an outsider looking in), suggests a wide range of influences. Of education in the Soviet Union, he asks: How much this program owes to ancient Russian messianism, how much to religious orthodoxy, how much to Marxist ideology, and how much simply to a firm commitment to education is a problem we should ponder. (King, 1967:254) Writing rather more recently, at the turn of the century, Robin Alexander, in his major comparative study of primary education in seven countries suggests of Russia, in the relatively early post-communist days: To list the powers formally wielded or the decisions taken formally at each level of the system is insufficient: we must understand also the dynamics of their relationship and the subtle transformations of policies and ideas which those dynamics permit. In Russia’s case we found the local level to be critical, for it combines professional and political hegemony with administrative and financial control. (Alexander, 2000:80) Thus, we see a number of western perspectives on aspects of Russian education at various times over the past 40 to 50 years, each raising interesting questions which will be explored later in this book. But where, we might ask, are the voices of Russians themselves?

Introduction  3 The answer to this question may lie in at least two areas of writing and scholarship. Although Leo Tolstoy is best known for his profoundly influential novels, perhaps most notably War and Peace, he was also a significant educational theorist and indeed a practitioner. On the rural estate that he owned in Russia, he established a school for the children of the peasant families working on the estate and himself taught there. He wrote about his approach to education and was an inspiration for figures ranging from Mahatma Gandhi in India to George Dennison in the urban free school movement in the USA in the 1960s. Indeed, Dennison’s book The Lives of Children (1969), which was another inspiration for me during my own initial teacher education, describes ‘First Street School’, in New York’s Lower East Side. More or less a whole chapter here is devoted to the influence of Leo Tolstoy and how his commitment to a respectful relationship between teachers and pupils was at the core of his approach to teaching and learning. It is also well worth reading Moulin’s volume on Tolstoy’s educational thinking and practice (Moulin, 2011). If Tolstoy was a key figure in the late 19th century, then if we turn to psychology we can find a flowering of innovative theory and insights in the Soviet Union during the first half of the 20th century and beyond. The most renowned name in the west today is that of Lev Vygotsky, who not only provided important new insights to the links between language and thought but also provided the basis for key concepts that have been included in the curricula of much western teacher education for several decades now, including the idea of ‘the zone of proximal development’. He also provided the theoretical basis for what has become an influential paradigm in educational studies, that which is known as ‘activity theory’ (see Wertsch, 1985; Ellis, Edwards, & Smagorinsky, 2010). Names such as Tolstoy and Vygotsky resonate today around the world and influence practices and research in education. They are but one part of the rich heritage of teacher education in Russia and, as we shall see, there is some evidence that Russian teacher education and educational sciences are entering another period of considerable renaissance.

The background to this book The present book, which I have edited, but the bulk of which is written by Russian colleagues, is the result of a collaboration that started in 2014 when I first met colleagues from Kazan Federal University (KFU), when they attended the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association, held that year in London. A small team from KFU was present at the conference and presented a symposium on teacher education in Russia. It was immediately apparent that significant developments were under way at KFU. I was subsequently invited to visit Kazan and to give a keynote lecture at the very first International Forum on Teacher Education (IFTE), held there in 2015. Since then I have attended every subsequent IFTE event, apart from one, and including the 2020 conference during the COVID-19

4  Ian Menter pandemic, for which I recorded a keynote that was then broadcast to the large virtual audience in Russia and around the world. Colleagues from KFU and I also travelled together to other international conferences including the American Education Research Association meeting held in Washington DC in 2016 and the meeting of the World Educational Research Association held in Japan, in Tokyo in 2019. At these events, we collaborated on presentations. Three particular KFU colleagues were involved in these presentations, namely the Rector of KFU, Professor Ilshat Gafurov, the Head of the KFU Institute of Psychology and Education, Professor Aydar Kalimullin, and the Head of the Department of Pedagogy and Head of International Relations in the Institute, Professor Roza Valeeva. These three have become key contributors to the present volume and I wish here to record my deep gratitude to them for their friendship, comradeship, and scholarship over these years and in the production of this book. In 2018, I was delighted to take up a part-time appointment as a Senior Research Associate in the KFU Institute of Psychology and Education in order to continue this collaboration. One chapter in the book is not written by a KFU staff member, but by Dr Elena Revyakina, who I did first meet at one of the IFTE conferences in Kazan. However, her contribution to this volume derives from me being asked by her doctoral supervisor at University College Dublin, Dr Conor Galvin (another frequent visitor to Kazan), to act as her external examiner in 2018. Her thesis was a close examination of a particular educational reform project in Russia, the Modernisation of Teacher Education. Her close analysis of the policy processes involved make an invaluable complement to the other chapters in the book.

Teacher education in Russia: historical overview The history of teacher education in Russia is not only fascinating, it is also rather complex. There are three very distinct periods in modern Russian history that must inform our understanding of developments. First is the Tsarist period from the 18th through to the early 20th century, when Russia had an essentially agrarian economy, albeit with much international trade and many cultural connections with Europe and the wider world. Society was characterised by great inequalities and levels of literacy were very low, especially among the rural masses. This period was abruptly ended in 1917 by the Bolshevik Revolution, which gave rise to the creation of the largest communist state in the world and led to the rapid expansion of the education system, including teacher education. Literacy levels rose rapidly, but the underlying economic challenges were one factor that created a culture of repression and fear for many, not only in Russia, but also in other countries lying behind ‘The Iron Curtain’ (Applebaum, 2012). The Second World War had a devastating impact on Russia and afterwards there was another period of intensive economic rebuilding, also accompanied by restrictions on political and cultural freedoms. The domination of hardline communism started to falter in the 1980s as ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ were introduced

Introduction  5 under President Gorbachev and his successors (Garton Ash, 1989, 1990; Glenny, 1990). This led to a more mixed economy with elements of private ownership re-emerging and more cultural interaction between Russia and elsewhere. The Soviet Union was replaced by the Russian Federation and many of the former Soviet states became independent (e.g. see Lieven, 1993). The education system experienced considerable instability during this time and it is really only in the first part of the 21st century that there has been a concerted effort to prioritise educational provision and even more recently, to ensure that the teacher education system is a strong one, providing high-quality training for intending teachers. Morgan, Trofimova, and Kliucharev (2019) have also recently shown how there is renewed interest in wider conceptions of education in Russia and how what they call ‘popular education’ may enhance civil society. The chapters in this book consider these developments in much more detail and not only does this book constitute one of the first full-length accounts written in English of Russian teacher education as it has developed in the 21st century, it also has the invaluable insider perspective that is offered by my Russian colleagues, who have been living through and working directly on the recent reforms. Our overall approach therefore may be seen as a sociohistorical one. We are interested in how developments in teacher education connect to and interact with other social changes including changes in politics, the economy, and the culture. Russia is a vast country – even if geographically smaller than the USSR was – and the task of making sense of social and educational change is certainly a daunting one. By ensuring that Russian voices are to the fore of our account, we may avoid the western tendency of what Smith (2019) dubbed The Russia Anxiety, this being the title of his book in which he traces the origins and developments of western perspectives on Russia as a country that is not to be trusted. He notes the paradox of our (western) deep admiration for the music, theatre, and literature of Russia, while at the same time thinking of the country as ‘a unique menace’. Certainly, it is my expectation that western readers of the present volume should find the accounts of Russian teacher educational developments not only fascinating but exciting and stimulating – and far from menacing.

Recent developments: a case of vernacular globalisation While the development of teacher education in Russia is interesting in itself, it also has much wider significance. The three main phases of Russian history – pre-revolutionary; the Soviet Union; and ‘post-communism’ – each had an important part in shaping contemporary policy and practice. However, the most recent period has additional interest in being a case of the influence of globalising tendencies, especially the ‘economisation’ of education (including teacher education) and the growing influence of neoliberalism. When we consider parallel developments elsewhere, including Europe, North America, and China, we begin to see how important the Russian case

6  Ian Menter is as a way of understanding how ‘vernacular globalisation’ is being played out in the context of the former major communist power block in the world. It has been suggested that the field of comparative education tends to be over-influenced by western perspectives, not least because it was in these western contexts that such studies first emerged (although Johnson (2010:8) notes an early example of comparative education work in Russia, by K.D. Udonsky (1824–70)). The transformation of socialist or communist societies into post-socialist or ‘democratic’ societies is not a simple or linear one. It is full of complexity, nuance, and ambiguity. As Chankseliani and Silova (2018) say, there are: …ongoing tensions inherent in post-socialist transformations, suggesting that beneath the surface of dominant neoliberal narratives there are always powerful countercurrents – ranging from the persisting socialist legacies to re-emerging premodern imaginaries to other conceptualisations of education futures. (pp. 8–9) There are in other words issues of legacy as well as of change and innovation. Indeed that is the reason it is so important to take a well-informed historical perspective in these matters.

The structure of the book The book is structured chronologically, in three parts, covering past, present, and future. Part 1 consists of three chapters looking respectively at the three main phases of Russian history, i.e., the pre-Soviet Union Tsarist Russia (Chapter 1), the main 20th century period of revolutionary communism (Chapter 2) and then the final years of the 20th century when the Soviet Union started to fragment (Chapter 3). In Part 2, the story from 2000 onwards is picked up in a sequence of three chapters. The history of the period is described first (Chapter 4), followed by a detailed case study of developments at one institution, Kazan Federal University (Chapter 5). The final chapter in this part is an analysis of a particular reform programme, The Modernisation of Teacher Education (Chapter 6). Part 3 which considers the future of teacher education in Russia is necessarily more speculative in nature. The first of the three chapters (Chapter 7) looks ahead to consider where Russian teacher education might be heading. The next chapter (Chapter 8) seeks to locate the developments in Russia within the context of global developments in teacher education. The book concludes with a short chapter (Chapter 9) which offers a review of what has been learned about teacher education in Russia and to suggest why this is important not only within the Russian Federation but also internationally.

Introduction  7

References Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy. Oxford: Blackwell. Applebaum, A. (2012). Iron curtain – The crushing of eastern Europe. London: Penguin. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two worlds of childhood. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Chankseliani, M., & Silova, I. (2018). Introduction. In M. Chankseliani & I. Silova (Eds.), Comparing post-socialist transformations. Didcot: Symposium Books. Dennison, G. (1969). The lives of children. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Ellis, V., Edwards, A., & Smagorinsky, P. (Eds.). (2010). Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and development. London: Routledge. Garton Ash, T. (1989). The uses of adversity. Cambridge: Granta. Garton Ash, T. (1990). We the people. Cambridge: Granta. Glenny, M. (1990). The rebirth of history. London: Penguin. Grant, N. (1968). Soviet education (Revised edn.) Harmondsworth: Penguin. Johnson, D. (2010). Educational reform in Russia: Culture, context and worldview. In D. Johnson (Ed.), Politics, modernisation and educational reform in Russia – From past to present. Didcot: Symposium Books. King, E. (1967). Other schools and ours (3rd ed.). London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Lieven, A. (1993). The Baltic revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press. Morgan, J. W., Trofimova, I., & Kliucharev, G. (2019). Civil society, social change, and a new popular education in Russia. London: Routledge. Moulin, D. (2011). Leo Tolstoy. London: Bloomsbury. Smith, M. (2019). The Russia anxiety and how to resolve it. London: Penguin. Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Part 1

The past

1 Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin

Introduction Pre-revolutionary times were the longest and most fundamental in the history of teacher education in Russia. It was then that traditions and principles of the Russian teacher education system, many of which have been maintained to this day, were laid down. The evolution of teacher education in Russia can be studied only in view of several interrelated themes: 1. Economic, social, political, and cultural factors that affected the development of teacher education. 2. The balance between ecclesiastical, state, and social components in teacher education. 3. The interaction of fundamental, professional, and educational (moral) components in the teacher training curriculum. 4. The synergies of educational, historical, philosophical, psychological, and sociological analyses of the studied phenomenon. In this chapter, we first cover the conditions, prerequisites, birth, and development of teacher education in Russia from the end of the 18th till the beginning of the 20th century. The chapter describes levels, forms, and types of teacher training educational establishments of that time and shows the role of education leaders, teachers, and scholars. We have analysed the achievements and pitfalls of education policies, and the provisions of the main policy documents in the educational sphere that contributed to the development of a fairly effective system of teacher education in the country.

Educational developments in Russia The establishment of the teacher education system in Russia is closely related to general processes of development at one or another historic period. In this regard, it is essential to note the significant impetus for the development of world civilisation given by bourgeois revolutions in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. The introduction of entrepreneurial activity, the rapid growth of industry, and the development of new territories sped up

12  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin the processes of reproduction of new knowledge. The horizons of education were expanded, acting as a stimulus for involvement of the wider population in learning and science. The availability and mass scale of education, especially primary education, increased in many leading European countries. The links between primary, secondary, higher and university levels appeared, old universities were being developed, and new educational institutions were established. Some of them identified their vocational orientation under the influence of specific economic conditions and requirements. The significant expansion of mainstream schooling was the main reason for a revolution in teacher education, having set out new requirements for the scale and quality of teacher training. On the whole, the formation and development of teacher education in Russia was in line with these European tendencies. Primarily, this relates to the great expansion of mass general education, diminished religious influence, and the focus on responding to the challenges of economic and social development of the country. At the same time, the development of the Russian educational system had some specific features. First of all, there are natural and geographical factors. By the early 19th century, Russia was the largest country in the world. Its territory spread out from the Baltic Sea to the Atlantic Ocean, from the Arctic Region to the northern Black Sea Region and the Caucasus. Travellers covering 180 versts (approximately 120 British miles) a day would take 34 days to arrive in the Siberian city Irkutsk from Saint Petersburg. The trip to Kamchatka, a peninsula located in the north-eastern part of Russia, took three months. Over 40 million people living in Russia were settled over its territory extremely unevenly. Only central governorates were densely populated. In these areas, the density of population comprised 8 people per sq. km. Siberia was populated far less densely and the Russian Far East formed a vast uninhabited territory. Another peculiar feature of the country was its fairly heterogeneous population. Russians, a prevailing ethnic group, lived with Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Tatars, Mordovians, and others. The duration and nature of integration of these people in the Russian state determined their position and degree of involvement in the all-Russian processes in regard to the economy and education. The multinational composition of Russia had an impact on the country’s religious diversity. Along with the prevailing religion, Orthodox Christianity (87%), Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, and paganism were also deeply rooted. The state support of Christianity accounted for its significant influence on education that was under the domination of the religious worldview for centuries. The social organisation of Russia was based on a class structure. The main social categories included nobility, the clergy, merchants, low middle class, the peasantry, and the Cossacks. These social categories represented close groups having different rights and obligations. Each of them had a different legal status. This fact was a reason for unequal access to education for different social classes, affecting their respective levels of literacy. For instance,

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  13 such privileged categories as nobility and the clergy were in a more favoured position. By contrast, the peasantry, the lowest and numerous class (over 70%), received limited education. These factors were determining for the development of education in Russia in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Gradually however, they were becoming less important. Eventually, they lost their significance in the Soviet period of Russian history in the 20th century. Grading these changes according to their importance, the development of secular tendencies in education should be singled out as paramount. One of the major events on this path was the establishment of Moscow University – the first secular higher education institution in the country – in 1755. In 1779, a teachers’ training college with a three-year length of study was founded at the university. This date was the effective starting point in the 240-year history of teacher education in Russia.

The origins of teacher education in Russia The history of teacher education in Russia cannot be considered outside the context of the country’s development as a whole (Churkina, 2015; Dneprov, 2017; Milyukov, 1994). Most transformations in the field of education were related to reforms in the sphere of the state structure, politics, economy, and culture. As a rule, it was initiated by public authority represented by Russian emperors and administrators with a different degree of involvement of public figures, scholars, educators, and others at one or another historical stage (Andreeva et al., 2009; Konstantinov et al., 1982). In its turn, practically every new stage in the development of education was associated with considerable changes in the teacher training system (Grigoriev, 1900). The progressive economic and cultural development of Russia required accelerating the transition to mass education at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries. This led to serious changes in teacher training. The first educational institutions specialising in teacher education appeared at the end of 18th century. Up to this date, the need for teachers for secular schools was successfully met within traditional spiritual (religious) education, which was provided by educational institutions of the Holy Governing Synod, such as the Kiev-Mohyla and Slavic-Greek-Latin Academies, Trinity, Novgorod, and Alexander Nevsky theological seminaries. Church clergy were almost the only teachers in the public (mass) schools in Russia. They not only taught children, but also supported schools financially with ‘their slender means’ (Nikolsky, 1821). From the middle of the 18th century, Moscow University began to train teachers for gymnasiums. These educational institutions fully ensured the preparation of a rather small professional group focused on teaching a relatively small proportion of children in the country. At the same time, during the 18th century, the number of students was on the rise. Especially, this process was running rapidly in the era of the development of capitalist relations, when the demand for educated people sharply increased. This led to the implementation of government reforms in

14  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin the educational sector, an increase in the number of educational institutions at various levels, and other changes (Nikulina, 2014). The formation of this sphere of professional activity in the 18th century is not accidental. The reforms of Peter the Great at the beginning of the century marked the first major step in the Europeanisation of the country. The impossibility of the ‘natural’ evolution of Russia became so obvious, that it was doomed to become one of the most backward countries in Europe. In terms of socio-economic development, Russia was noticeably behind the leading Western European countries. Nevertheless, in a political sense, Russia was a strong, corporate, and tyrannical state at that time. During the first quarter of the 18th century, Peter the Great, as an ardent supporter of pro-Western economic development, managed to put in place a radical reform of Russian life. Due to this fact, the demise of the feudal system and the onset of capitalist relations quickened. During the 18th century the latter grew so strong that they came into conflict with the estate system and serfdom. These Petrine reforms, which affected to a greater extent the socio-economic structure of Russia, also affected public life, including culture and education. Several years of life in Europe demonstrated to the young Peter that economic development largely depends on the progress in education. As a progressive leader, he understood that it was necessary to weaken the influence of the religious worldview and ideology that dominated throughout the Middle Ages. As a result, the secular movement significantly consolidated its position in culture and education, though it lagged behind Europe by several centuries. During the second half of the 18th century, Moscow University was strengthened and a system of general and vocational education was created. Engineering, medical, mining, navigational, military, and craft schools appeared. A primary education system was being formed as a basis for further education of young people. The reforms of Peter I determined the strategic course of Russia’s development for a long time, despite the fact that among his successors there were no personalities on a par with him. Nevertheless, the Russian empresses Elizabeth of Russia and Catherine II continued focusing on the development of education. An important stage for Russia was the time of enlightened absolutism in the 1760s, associated with the reign of Empress Catherine II. Representing a rather specific Russian version of the European Enlightenment, this ideology contributed to the formation of a new capitalist structure. The ‘Enlightened Absolutism’ in Russia was aimed at improving the political system, including the solution of social problems. This explained the growing attention to the development of the country’s educational system as an integral part of public life (Janković Mirijevski & Felbiger, 1788). These processes provided a powerful upsurge of the country’s economic and social life in the 19th century, which became the period when capitalism was established in the history of Russia. Further challenges of the country’s economic growth required an increase in the level of education of people. This entailed a reform of the public education system and inevitably

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  15 affected teacher training. During the 18th century and then in the 19th century, an understanding of the teacher’s role in public life, the importance of forming their worldview, and the need for their special training were firmly established. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Russian society, represented by its best members, came to a complete understanding of the importance of teachers’ work. Many of them were called ‘enlighteners’. Within the framework of their general ideology of educating the country’s population, they advocated the idea of special training for Russian teachers and the formation of a teacher intelligentsia. One of the requirements was the removal of incompetent foreigners who poured in during that period under the guise of being teachers. The key ideas of the Russian educators of the 18th century, many of whom were associated with Moscow University, were embodied in the activities of the teacher’s training college created as part of university (Ilchenko, 2004). The college was founded by famous enlighteners Novikov and Schwartz. They also initiated the creation of the ‘Scientific Society of Friendship’, which donated part of the funds for the college establishment. In addition, Professor Schwartz donated five thousand roubles of his own savings for this purpose. College students were recruited from educational institutions of the Synod. Simultaneously, they studied at university. The foundation of the teacher’s training college was preceded by a scholarly discussion about the main priorities in teacher training. The first idea was suggested by the Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. He considered the training of teachers in disciplines of the special subject cycle (mathematics for mathematics teachers, literature for literature teachers, etc.). The author of the second key idea about the importance of the science of teaching (pedagogy) was Professor Schwartz. Thus, this methodological dualism – the subject and the pedagogy – was originally laid down in the methodology of teacher education in Russia. As a result, it marked a 240-year confrontation between two approaches to teacher training – the competence-based and the subject-based approaches. Its subsequent history shows examples of not only the dominance of one of them in educational practice, but also of a reasonable consensus between them in different chronological periods. Another increase in the need for teachers in the 1780s indicated the inadequacy of one teacher’s training college at Moscow University. The college trained only a small number of teachers for Moscow and Kazan gymnasiums and several private boarding schools. Unfortunately, the activity of the training college did not expand significantly and only about 30 students studied there three years after its establishment. For a number of reasons, it did not receive state support (including due to its Masonic orientation) and was dissolved in 1791. An important event in the process of modernisation of school education in Russia was the decision made in the 1780s to open a main public school with a five-year study length in each provincial city, and small public schools with a two-year study length in district towns. To create them in 1782, the

16  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin Commission on the Establishment of Public Schools was formed (Russia. Laws and Regulations, 1830). As a result, a plan for the establishment of educational institutions, developed by this Commission in 1786, laid the foundation for the establishment of public schools. According to it, all public schools were divided into three types: small, with two classes; medium, with three; major, with four or five years of study. The need for teachers in these educational institutions differed in various regions of the country. In 1786, it was decided to open the main public schools in 26 governorates, and in 1788 in the remaining 25 governorates. At the beginning of the 19th century, the transformation of these schools into gymnasiums began. Initially, teachers for small schools were mainly trained in theological seminaries. Later this task was imposed on the St. Petersburg main public school, which was opened in 1783. This year the Serbian and Russian teacher Teodor (Fedor) Jankovic prepared the ‘Guide for Teachers of the First and Second Classes of Public Schools of the Russian Empire’. This document, compiled under the influence of Jan Amos Komensky, explained the teaching methods used by teachers and gave instructions for their educational activities. A significant role was given to the image of the teacher: ‘teachers should instruct children according to the law of God, educate them as pious Christians and faithful sons of the Church, who know the laws of God only in words, but also put them in practice’. In 1786, the teachers’ training college was separated from the school. Its aim was to prepare teachers for the rest of Russia’s main public schools. Education at the training college copied the Prussian model: the course of study was divided into theoretical and practical; not only subject knowledge, but also the ability to transfer this knowledge to students was required from the college applicants. The college’s founder was Fedor Jankovic who had valuable experience in the development and implementation of reforms in education in the Austrian and Russian empires in the second half of the 18th century. This scholar and administrator has become one of the most prominent figures in the history of teacher education in Russia. He and his followers consistently introduced advanced methods of teaching and academic performance control. A ‘class-and-lesson’ system was widely used. Many innovations were later introduced in other educational institutions in Russia. Initially, the teachers’ training college was intended for 100 students who were supposed to meet the following requirements: to be at least 18 years old, with high morality, the ability and willingness to communicate knowledge to others, diligence and a range of abilities, good knowledge of grammar, literature, Greek and Latin, arithmetic, geometry, physics, history, and the catechism (an official religious document in the Orthodox Christianity, a book containing the basic principles of believers, often presented in the form of questions and answers). An important achievement was the possibility to train children of all classes, with the exception of serfs. Students were recruited from among the graduates of Alexander Nevsky, Moscow, Kazan, Smolensk, and Tver teaching colleges, as well as graduates of Moscow University, Academic Gymnasium, and Kharkov Collegium. It should be noted

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  17 that about half of the students were expelled during the process of studying, due to their apparent inability to learn. Similarly with the curriculum of the St. Petersburg Public School, the educational process in the teachers’ training college was focused on the preparation of mathematics and history teachers. Future mathematics teachers studied arithmetic, geometry, mechanics, physics, and civil architecture. In order to become a history teacher, it was necessary to master world and Russian history, geography, and Russian. The course on pedagogy (“methods of teaching”) was compulsory for all students. Considerable attention was given to pedagogical practice, which students underwent in lower and small public schools. In due course, according to the same principle, the educational process took place in other provincial main public schools. It gave people an opportunity to prepare for the position of being a teacher in small public schools. In 1786, the Charter of Public Schools was developed to unify and regulate such educational institutions. It is a unique example of the combination and interconnection of school and teacher education in Russia. For the first time in the Charter, state requirements for teachers were presented. However, these requirements contained some religious components. In particular, it was noted that the teacher is not only an instructor, but mainly an educator, and therefore should have “Christian piety, kindness, courtesy, diligence …. and indulgence towards children. This position obliges one to be skilful in what children should be taught”. The creation of teachers’ training colleges within major public schools was an important stage in the formation of teacher education in the country. However, the scale of their activities gradually ceased to meet the needs of such a huge country. For example, a teachers’ training college in Moscow for 16 years from 1786 to 1802 trained 86 teachers for small public schools. The college in St. Petersburg for 18 years of its existence from 1783 to 1801 trained 425 teachers for 52 major public schools in Russia. In 1803, it was transformed into the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute. In turn, St. Petersburg University was established on the basis of the Institute in 1819.

Teacher education in the first half of the 19th century Teacher education in Russia entered a new stage in its development at the beginning of the 19th century. It was a time of rapid cultural and spiritual development of Russia. Educational policy developed in line with the general transformations in the country, fully experiencing the influence of a struggle between liberal and conservative trends in the government. The political context entailed inconsistency and contradiction of reforms at different levels of the Russian educational system. In particular, the positive stance of Emperor Alexander I to advance educational reforms at the beginning of the 19th century was replaced by the conservative stance of the next Emperor, Nicholas I, in the second quarter of the 19th century. The ideological orientation of the education of that time was fully reflected in the ideas formulated

18  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin by the Minister of Education, Sergey Uvarov. He believed that the most important basics of enlightenment in Russia were Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality. However, the importance of the liberal reforms of Alexander I in education is enormous. This period was closely associated with the transformation at the school level due to the understanding by the government of Russia’s lag in the level of education from the advanced European countries. Illiteracy was prevalent not only in the lower classes, but also among the clergy, merchants, and officials. The country was in dire need of educated people for industry, trade, the administrative apparatus, healthcare, and other important areas of activity. This fact led to significant changes in the field of education in the first quarter of the 19th century. In 1802, the Ministry of Public Education was created and the Preliminary Rules for Public Education were adopted, introducing new principles for the organisation of education in the country (Rozhdestvensky, 1902; Ministry of Public Education, 1864). According to this regulatory act, all educational institutions were connected. Having received primary education, it was possible to enter a secondary educational institution, and then a higher education institution. Thus, the continuity of education was formed and at the same time some class barriers were eliminated. By a decree of 1804, a system of educational institutions was introduced in the country. Primary schools in rural areas were one-year parish schools, and there were district schools in cities; secondary schools – gymnasiums; and higher education establishments – universities and other institutions. However, following the school charter of 1828, these progressive trends were eliminated, as we shall see. According to the Charter on the Organization of Educational Institutions of 1803, six educational districts, headed by trustees, and four categories (levels) of educational institutions, i.e. parish schools, district schools, gymnasiums, and higher educational institutions (special institutes and universities) were created. As noted, the duration of study in parish schools was one year, in district schools, two years. After that students had the right to enter the gymnasium. The content of training in parish schools included the Law of God, reading, writing, arithmetic, and an explanation of the textbook Brief Instruction in Rural Economics. Fifteen subjects were taught in district schools including Russian grammar, general and Russian history and geography, geometry, physics, natural sciences, etc. In addition, a special course “Basic Rules of Technology”, focused on the initial professional training of students for work at local industrial enterprises, was introduced into the programme. The development of the curriculum for educational institutions was guided by the city government, landowners, and state peasants. An important achievement was the possibility of teaching all interested children in parish schools, regardless of their social class, age, and gender. Nevertheless, in practice, a path to further education levels was not available for children of serfs. Only children of noblemen and officials could study in gymnasiums.

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  19 Only after four years of study at the gymnasium, a graduate could enter the university. In 1824, there were 24 gymnasiums in Russia. The system of continuity between different levels of education created under the Emperor Alexander I was dismantled in relation to the adoption of the next Charter of Educational Institutions in 1828 during the reign of the Russian Emperor Nicholas I. At that time, schools were organised on the basis of social class. For example, only representatives of the social lower classes, usually the peasantry, studied in single-class parish schools. Three-class district schools were mainly intended for children of merchants, artisans, and petty bourgeois. Accordingly, the requirements for teacher qualifications were different. First, they were taught only the Law of God, literacy and arithmetic. Second, they had Russian, arithmetic, geometry, history, and geography classes. The access to gymnasium education was provided mainly for children of the nobility, bureaucracy, and higher merchants who studied for seven years. Nevertheless, despite these class restrictions, one cannot but mention the progressiveness of measures taken by the Russian government to develop the country’s education system. For example, in the middle of the 19th century, approximately 130 elementary schools located in each of the 51 governorates operated on the main territory of European Russia. For comparison, at the beginning of the 19th century, there were only 158 parish schools in the country. These changes in school education were accompanied by corresponding transformations of teacher education. An important event in the field of higher education was the ratification of the University Charter of 1804, which stipulated the creation of a pedagogical institute at each university. The institutes’ function was to prepare teachers for gymnasiums and schools, as well as teachers for higher education institutions. Universities became centres of teacher education and provided methodological guidance for schools in the school district. Overall, by 1820, there were six universities in the country, namely Moscow (1755), Derpt (1802), Vilna (1579), Kazan (1804), Kharkov (1804), St. Petersburg (1819). Their area of responsibility included vast territories, especially in the east of the country. For example, teachers were trained at Kazan University for non-classical secondary schools and gymnasiums of the Volga region, the Caucasus, and Siberia (Astafiev, 2002; Kalimullin, 2009; Krapotkina, 2011; Perevoshchikov, 1814). In view of the development of professional education, a small number of teachers (mostly natural science teachers) obtained their education at non-pedagogical universities. However, only three or four teacher seminaries provided courses for teachers of primary public schools, which were predominant in the middle of the 19th century. Therefore, the department of religious affairs was responsible for the education of a majority of teachers. During 1804–1835, each of six pedagogical institutes had from 24 to 30 state-funded students. These students were selected by the recommendation of a professor, an inspector, or a director of the pedagogical institute. The state-funded students had to work as a teacher for six years after their teacher

20  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin training. Master’s students also studied at pedagogical institutes in order to work at universities. After three years of a teacher training course and three years of teaching practice, the best master’s graduates could become an associated professor at a university. Government authorities did not regulate the students’ learning process, allowing universities to have considerable autonomy. The learning process was supervised by the university board and a director of the pedagogical institute. Accordingly, the learning process depended on the administrators’ beliefs and competency. As a rule, students studied specialised courses for the first two years and acquired essential learning material. During the last year of their education, students had seminars on optional modules and simultaneously learned the methods of teaching. The importance of teacher education was gradually recognised within the university community, including the scholars from the natural sciences. For instance, Nikolai Lobachevsky and Ivan Simonov, prominent Russian scientists of the 19th century, graduated from pedagogical institutes. Afterwards, they each held the position of vice-chancellor of Kazan University (Starshinov, 2001). A majority of pedagogical institutes cultivated the key theory of in-depth knowledge in methodology, psychology, and pedagogy as a basis for teacher education. Importantly, these institutes tailored their lessons “to meet the individual needs of each teacher candidate”. The general and individualised lessons for each semester were planned by the vice-chancellor. For example, students from the School of Mathematics had general lectures on pure and applied mathematics, astronomy, physics, Russian folklore, and the Latin language. According to the vice-chancellor’s plan, pre-service teachers needed to write answers to the questions and submit assignments. Teacher candidates also helped students revise the material and tutored professors’ lectures (Ivanovsky, 1904, 1906). Furthermore, it quickly became a practice to invite foreign scholars to take up vice-chancellor positions. For instance, a German scholar Johann Gottlieb Buhle contributed immensely to the development of the Pedagogical Institute of St. Petersburg and Franz Xaver Bronner, a Swiss writer and teacher, to the progress of Kazan Pedagogical Institute. Furthermore, Bronner supported the educational and disciplinary ideas of the Illuminates Order, which were prevalent in the European educational environment of that period. The new regulations were introduced in 1835 and universities were no longer under regional educational management. As a result, these regulations also had a negative impact on pedagogical universities. The connection between the educational process and the educational institutions was disrupted and some universities terminated their teacher training courses. Nevertheless, many universities’ graduates continued to pursue the teaching profession. During the first half of the 19th century, scholars and teachers from different organisations attempted to improve teacher education programmes. For example, a group of educators from Moscow Pedagogical University (Fyodor Buslaev, Dmitry Ilovaysky, Nikolai Tikhonravov, Mikhail Pogodin,

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  21 and others) introduced the four-years learning initiative. During the first two years, students took classes according to their major. Afterwards, 3rdand 4th-year students delved deeper into the course material, learned pedagogy, gave mock teaching lessons for new students, took classes at grammar schools, and taught private lessons. In particular, Saint Petersburg Pedagogical Institute (established in 1804) had a major impact on teacher education. This institute was a teacher seminary before 1804 (Goncharov et al., 1997) and was renamed as the Main Pedagogical Institute in 1816. Additionally, as mentioned above, Saint Petersburg University was established on the basis of this Institute in 1819. Since 1829, the Main Pedagogical Institute was granted autonomy as an independent higher education organisation with teacher training programmes. Specifically, Saint Petersburg University first established engineering teachers’ training. Saint Petersburg Main Pedagogical Institute was assigned to control teacher training courses in the first half of the 19th century and its main aim was to educate pre-service grammar school teachers and future professors of universities. As a result, the Institute achieved a high status as the leading teacher training centre. Additionally, the Minister of Education was the head of the Institute at that time. The Institute explored the best practices for teacher education during 60 years of its activity. In light of this, other institutes and teacher seminaries adopted these practices as well. The length of education was six years. This later changed to five years in the context of teacher shortages, and to four years in 1849. Successful graduates had to work for the Ministry of Education for eight years. All the students had to take an entrance exam. The curriculum depended on the length of studies, but generally, it contained the following compulsory courses: logic and metaphysics, advanced mathematics, physics, geography, world history, oratory skills, grammar, Russian, foreign and ancient folklore, drawing and painting, religious instruction, and practical knowledge of a foreign language. Students passed exams and after that they were allocated to one of four different faculties: Mathematics, Natural Sciences, Philology, and History. Later they studied thoroughly and in-depth their specialist subjects and teacher training courses including pedagogic theory, the content of academic disciplines, didactics, teaching methods, and practical training. Pedagogical institutes (as part of the universities) had their special aspects, challenges, accomplishments, and limitations. Nevertheless, all institutes left a mark on the history of teacher education in Russia. Furthermore, they educated hundreds of teachers for work at grammar schools and district vocational schools. The main focus of the learning process was not only on the content knowledge but also on the craft of teaching and upbringing. The example described demonstrates the integration of subject-oriented (fundamental) and methodological and pedagogical (competency-based) approaches in teacher education. The following teaching methods were used: student-led interviews with professors, debates, seminars, practical exercises,

22  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin mock lectures, “exemplary lessons” with their further examination. Each teacher was trained to teach two or three subjects.

The second half of the 19th century Pedagogical institutes as part of the universities were closed in 1859. The temporary alternative was to take a two-year teacher training course provided at universities. This was the opportunity for students of history and philology as well as of physics and mathematics to take teacher training for work at grammar schools. There were two parts to this training. The first part was to acquire discipline-oriented courses and the second part was to learn the theory and practice of teacher education. Practical teaching experience could be gained at different schools. However, grammar schools were the most common choice. However, the first successful results of teacher training did not meet social needs either in terms of quantity or quality. Russia steadily entered the period of bourgeois transformation. The country initiated the new reforms in the 1850s. As a consequence, some interrelated bourgeois reforms were conducted in Russia in the 1860s–1870s which drastically changed the economic, political, and social structure of the country. Later these reforms were named ‘grand reforms’ by historians. The Emancipation Reform of 1861 (The Emancipation Edict of Russia) was the most important one because it affected a majority of the Russian population. Significantly, Emperor Alexander II emphasised that “it is better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for that time when it starts to abolish itself from below”. Furthermore, Alexander II was named ‘Tsar-Liberator’. The Emancipation Reform of 1861 meant the ending of feudalism in Russia and also, it determined further bourgeois developments in the country. The local government reform, judiciary reform, town reform, military reform, censorship reform, and reform of finance were conducted during the 1860s–1870s. These reforms brought drastic changes into the field of education (Iskhakova, 1999, 2002; Ministry of Public Education, 1876). They facilitated the transformation of the ‘landlord state’ into a ‘rule-of-law state’. Also, the reforms reduced social tension by educating a large swath of the population. The local government reform of 1864 (also referred to as zemstvo reform) was the most important reform for the transformation of education. The reform introduced new self-governing bodies, a representative council, and an executive board in central governorates and districts. These changes were introduced gradually. In the beginning, local governments focused on administrative and educational functions and were not involved in matters of state. Following the local government’s example, city dumas and city councils were formed as part of the new city self-governments. They were in charge of education, urban beautification, public health services, and other matters. The local government reform caused the rise of the local government liberal movement. The movement’s goal was to support education, including

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  23 teacher education. Some of the movement’s representatives were professors of Kazan University: Konstantin Yushkov, Arkady Yakobiy, Dmitry Korsakov, and others (Shakirova, 2005). This was a common situation for central governorates when academics actively participated in educational development. Democratically spirited intellectuals initiated the new forms of school and out-of-school education. The first free-of-charge Sunday schools were opened in Kyiv and later in other cities. They provided a wide range of subjects, such as geography, the principles of chemistry, physics, and other subjects. There were more than 300 Sunday schools in 1862. The local government liberal movement was in favour of public schools, new educational methods, and women’s right to education. Almost ten thousand local government schools were opened between 1864 and 1874. The local government schools gradually outnumbered parochial schools and became the main type of primary mass education. The government also initiated ‘ministerial schools’, but without any success. Unsurprisingly, new types of schools had their own particular approaches, and therefore, they required new approaches to teacher education. The local government movement was the experiment of mutual cooperation between the government and public and private initiatives in different spheres. This cooperation was particularly effective in the educational field. The influence of the local government movement on education had some crucial consequences. The numerous local government schools improved access to primary education, and hence, it brought attention to the question of access to teacher education. However, this expansion of schools led to a decrease in the quality of teacher training. This increased the gap between higher education teacher training and vocational teacher training. Higher education universities had teacher training for teachers who intended to work at grammar schools and non-classical secondary schools. Although pedagogical institutes were closed, the universities provided a two-year teacher training, for instance at the universities of Saint Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan, Kyiv and Kharkiv. First and foremost, teacher candidates studied in depth the discipline they were planning to teach. The following courses were offered in this narrow specialisation: Russian philology (Slavic languages) and Russian history; classical languages; the world and Russian history and political geography; mathematics and physics; natural history and physical geography; modern languages. Also, pre-service teachers studied pedagogy and didactics. In particular, they had lectures presented by professors and associate professors and practical teaching experience under the supervision of a subject teacher. Student teachers were allocated in advance to grammar schools through a process of an internship. By the end of the course, students were given a recommendation for work at grammar schools and further at university (Eskin, 1952; Ministry of Public Education, 1865; Pertsev, 2013; Pletneva, 1997). The harmonious combination of the theory and practice, the combination of courses, and the academic experience of professors and educationalists sustained a high level of academic achievement. However, this relatively

24  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin individualised instructional approach in teacher education was unable to cope with the rising demand for highly qualified teachers for grammar schools. For example, during the 1860s, the grammar schools in Western Siberia each had at least three or four vacancies and some of the teachers recruited were not educated at university. In view of this, the educational community endeavoured to realise the idea of the ‘faculty of education’. However, this intention was unsuccessful, and short teacher training courses lasted only until 1867. New primary public school regulations were released in 1874. According to this document, the primary level of education became classless and freeof-charge, and the objective was to disseminate useful knowledge. The rising demand for teachers at different levels of schooling was connected with the rising number of school children. Bourgeois reforms of the 1860s–1870s eliminated the impact of social class on education and increased access to education. Grammar schools became officially recognised as secondary schools (Ministry of Public Education, 1871). Anyone, who passed the entry examination and paid fees (on average 15–50 rubles per year), could be admitted to these schools. Consequently, the number of educational institutions and school children increased. The main type of secondary schools was grammar schools. For instance, there were 85 male grammar schools with 25 thousand students in 1861, but there were more than 250 grammar schools with more than 70 thousand students at the end of the 1880s. Around 300 female education institutions of different types were opened across the country at the beginning of the 1890s providing girls with better access to education. This can be considered as the first boom in female schooling in Russia. In view of this, female students slightly outnumbered male students. At the same time, the number of non-classical secondary schools, which appeared before the reforms, also increased. Alexander II released The regulation of grammar schools and vocational schools in 1864. According to the regulation, there were two types of schools: grammar schools and vocational schools. The latter school prepared students to work in the industry and economic sectors. Thus, compared to grammar schools, vocational schools offered more classes on physics, chemistry, foreign languages, etc. Graduates from this type of schools usually continued their education in vocational higher education institutions. According to “The regulation of grammar schools” of 1871, vocational schools were closed. The document, however, was amended and “The regulation of vocational schools” was released. As stated in the document, vocational schools were considered as separate education institutions that provided general and vocational training. Graduates of vocational schools could head straight to work in the economics sector or go into further higher education study. Parochial schools remained common in the countryside (Bobrovnikov, 1900). Their students studied writing and reading, religious instruction, the Slavonic language, and liturgical chant, but the quality of education was low. Nonetheless, the government supported parochial schools intending

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  25 to educate children in the spirit of religious commitment and political reliability. Religious education complied with The Regulation of Primary Public Schools of 1864. Specifically, parochial school teachers did not need to prove their competency and integrity in order to be teachers. On the other hand, secular teachers needed to obtain permission to teach from a district school board. The literacy rate also increased in the post-reform period and it related to the region and people’s occupation. The Russian census of the population of 1897 provided the official data. According to it, the average literacy rate was 21.1%: 29.3% male and 13.1% female. Interestingly, a higher percentage of illiterate people were in the city areas.

The impact of industrialisation Industrial growth, the change of the techno-economic paradigm and new means of communication all gave rise to the need for further drastic change in the field of education. Teacher education lagged behind the needs of primary and secondary schools. Moreover, the diverse system of education made it more difficult to prepare teachers for different levels of schooling. The move to mass primary education called for teachers without higher education. Consequently, teacher training courses in non-university vocational education became prevalent. Public activity and activity by local governments caused the rise of the three-year teacher seminaries and the teacher schools as the most common organisations in the vocational education of teachers. The St. Petersburg teacher school (1872) and the Tver teacher school named after Pavel Maximovich (1870) had particularly high-quality instruction. These schools specifically paid attention to religious education and spiritual development. Students had to closely follow the instructions of the Russian Orthodox Church, attend worship, and read religious books. Apart from the religious aspect of education, students also studied Russian language and literature, mathematics, natural science, physics, geography, history, drawing, singing, pedagogy, the methodology of primary education. “Empirical schools” affiliated with the seminaries were opened as the organisations where future teachers had a teaching internship. The theoretical model of seminaries was developed by a famous scholar Konstantin Ushinsky, who is also known as a founder of Russian pedagogy, in 1861 (Gavrilichev, 1997; Shadrikov, 1990; Struminsky, 1952; Ushinsky, 1974, 1988, 2004). The amended The Regulation of Teacher Seminaries was released in 1870 and later the additional guidance was added to this document in 1875. It should be pointed out that there was an attempt to open teacher training courses at district vocational schools in order to prepare teachers to work at public schools in 1865. It was stated in this manner: Due to financial shortage, we are unable to open a required amount of teacher seminaries. We thereby organised teacher training courses at one of the district vocational schools on a temporary basis and as the less

26  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin expensive solution in the following regions: Saint Petersburg, Moscow, Kharkiv, Kazan, and Odessa. However, Dmitry Tolstoy, a Minister of Education, examined the quality of these teacher training courses several years later and found the quality of instruction to be poor. Therefore, The Regulation of Teacher Seminaries of 1870 was used as the main guidance to establish teacher seminaries. The government’s initiative also can be described as the opportunity to regain its influence in teacher education (Andreeva et al., 2009). Seminaries’ students were mainly from the families of rural clergy, civil servants, and the middle-class peasants. The length of study was three years. Although the curriculum was not standardised, the Ministry of Education made attempts to intervene in the work of the state and local government seminaries.

Teacher education for women There was a rivalry between the government and public activities in the context of teacher education, for example, with regard to the curriculum and the teaching process of the seminaries. There was a critical difference between the state and the local government seminaries in terms of their content and methods. The local government seminaries supported the development of students’ interest in science and their mental and critical thinking for future practice even in a case when both seminaries had the same curriculum. As a result, the local government seminaries’ students strived to successfully learn pedagogy and the art of upbringing. Female teacher seminaries were opened in some districts. However, the government started to reject applications to open new teacher seminaries and make regular inspections of other seminaries from the middle of the 1870s until the end of the 1880s. As a consequence, the implementation of the female teacher seminaries faced some difficulties. The state teacher seminaries paid more attention to the development of students’ basic teaching skills than their creativity in teaching. In particular, teacher educators of the state seminaries had an official lesson plan and according to this plan, they needed to educate ‘a teacher-bureaucrat’, not ‘a dedicated teacher’ who loves children and his or her work (Churkina, 2015). Another example of the government initiative in teacher training was the opening of additional teaching classes in female grammar schools and parochial secondary schools. Students of female schools had special classes on pedagogy where they had a chance to learn pedagogical processes and terminology and at the same time, they broadened their perspective. One successful example was the St. Petersburg female grammar schools. To tackle the problem of the teacher shortage at the secondary level of schooling, additional teacher training courses were opened at female grammar schools. The classes complied with ‘The regulation of grammar schools and pro-grammar schools of Ministry of Education’ (1870). The same regulation specified students’ future fields of expertise: resident tutor and governess.

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  27 Additionally, the graduates of female grammar schools could work in public schools after seven years of studies. Male students were not allowed. ‘The regulation about teaching classes’ of 1874 was more detailed and specified the curriculum with some disciplines (Pleteneva & ­ Emelyanova, 2014; Shamakhov, 1953). A new statement of 1899 called ‘Curriculum and lesson plans for the 8th class of female grammar schools in the Moscow educational district’ was issued as a basis for teaching at grammar schools in different regions, beyond Moscow. This statement remained in place until the time of political regime change in 1917. The approach to learning was thoughtful and female students had compulsory subjects as well as one or two optional ones. The lessons were theoretical and practical. For example, there were about six types of theoretical lessons and four types of practical ones. The female grammar school’s graduates could work at female pro-grammar schools and rural schools or teach primary grades of female grammar schools or educate children at home. This approach to teaching was especially important for teacher education in the distant regions of Russia (Elnitsky, 1881; Emelyanova, 2020; Ministry of Public Education, 1871). Eparchial (church) schools for women trained governesses and teachers for primary public schools. Eparchial schools accepted 10–12-year-old girls who passed three exams: the law of God, the Old Church Slavonic and Russian languages, and Arithmetic. A six-year course of studies included such subjects as the law of God, arithmetic and physics, history and geography, the Old Church Slavonic and Russian languages, didactics and methods of teaching, hygiene and handicraft. The training process comprised teaching practice at parochial schools. The curriculum included three or four lessons per day, each lesson lasting 50 minutes. Some eparchial schools later introduced additional pedagogical classes in two subject areas: philology and history, physics and mathematics. The classes were especially essential for small towns. For example, the primary goal of the Stakheev eparchial school for women in the town of Elabuga was to provide excellent all-round two-years training for young ladies and prepare them to be teachers in primary public schools. The training system greatly resembled the so called ‘pedagogical’ Year 8 of studies at grammar schools for girls (Ministry of Public Education, 1865). In terms of teaching and learning, pedagogical courses for women introduced after the reform in many large cities across the country appeared to be more fundamental (Shchetinina, 2011). Sometimes universities ran the higher courses for women taught by universities’ academic staff. As a rule, such courses were financed by founders or philanthropists. The courses provided high-quality education, excelled in effective self-governance, and started the revolution in women’s education in Russia. From 1869 to 1876, different higher courses for women were launched in major Russian cities. For example, Alarchinsky, Vladimirsky, and Bestuzhev courses were launched in Saint-Petersburg, named after the people who devised them; Lubyanksy, and Guerrier courses were introduced in Moscow

28  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin and Kazan. University professors acted as the main driving force in the establishment and work of women’s courses. For example, Professor Guerrier from Moscow University and Professor Sorokin from Kazan University initiated the establishment of the courses in their respective institutions. At the beginning of the 20th century, professors from the Tomsk University and Tomsk Polytechnic University opened the Siberian higher courses for women. The Moscow higher courses for women (Guerrier courses) were the most significant in the formation of higher pedagogical education in Russia. The courses laid the foundation of the Moscow State Pedagogical University which became the largest pedagogical university in the country by the beginning of the 20th century. On 6 May 1872, the decree on the opening of the courses was signed by Dmitry A. Tolstoy, the Minister of Public Education. This was a new private educational institution that offered young women an opportunity to further continue their education after graduating from a secondary educational institution. Lecturers were the Moscow University professors and vastly experienced teachers from grammar schools which ensured high-level education of the Guerrier courses. The teaching staff were members of the teachers’ council and elected the head of the council who was fully responsible for the coordination of the courses. Such a structural system was common for most of the higher courses for women. From 1872 to the mid-1880s, the number of students enrolled at the Guerrier courses increased from 70 to 256. At the same time, 195 students studied at the Kyiv higher courses for women. Approximately the same number of students studied other higher courses for women, which was definitely far from enough for the system of education in Russia. Besides, the certificate awarded from the course was almost always not recognised as a legitimate document. As a result, young women had to take the exams to prove their qualification as a governess on the same basis as everyone else. The courses accepted those students who graduated from grammar schools and eparchial schools and wished to obtain the degree that gave them the right to teach pupils in upper secondary schools. Before introducing academic programme tracks, common subjects for all students were history of Russia, international history, Russian language and literature, European literature, mathematics, physics, and natural science. Afterwards, two academic programme tracks were introduced: a physics and mathematics track; a history and philology track. Pedagogy and didactics could be excluded from the course curriculum because teachers’ councils of some educational institutions considered curricula to be overloaded. Besides, pedagogy was already taught in grammar and eparchial schools. The case of the Guerrier courses is an example of the step-by-step evolution of such practice in search of the best content and teaching methods. The length of the studies also varied, thus from 1872 till 1879 the courses lasted two years, and after 1879 three years. Academic programme tracks were also gradually amended when natural science modules were removed from the curriculum, and the education inclined more towards historical and

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  29 philological sciences. In contrast, other Moscow higher courses for women (for example, the Lubyansky courses) shifted the focus onto physics and mathematical sciences at the beginning of the 1880s. Beginning from 1882, such courses implemented the curriculum followed at faculties of mathematics and physics at four-year universities. In 1903, Saint-Petersburg Pedagogical Institute for women was opened as part of the Pedagogical Courses at Saint-Petersburg grammar schools for women. The Institute prepared teachers to work at women’s educational institutions. Future teachers mastered their teaching skills at the grammar school for girls and kindergarten that belonged to the Institute. Again, there were two academic programme tracks at the Institute: history and philology, and physics and mathematics. Each programme lasted four years. The first two years comprised classroom training. From Year 3, students had practical training in schools. At the Institute, young ladies studied the law of God, philosophy, pedagogy, philology, history, physics, mathematics, natural science, and foreign languages (Osovski, 1959). The Institute accepted young women from the age of 16 with a secondary school diploma. Students did not have to take written exams at the end of each year and instead, they had an exam in the form of a discussion. Final examinations in each subject were administered when the module was completed. By 1 January 1905, more than 300 women studied at the Institute. Although by the 1870s the government’s involvement in the system of pedagogical education strengthened, the government’s role was still less prominent than in the first half of the 19th century. Pedagogical institutes with four to six years of studies were gradually replaced by three-year colleges or even by additional pedagogical classes which corresponded to incomplete secondary education. This is indicative of the inability to provide elite training for teachers in the second half of the 19th century, which led to the mass character not only of school but also pedagogical education. The tendency to open teacher training institutes was rather an exception. Nonetheless, such institutes turned out to be unpromising educational institutions as they did not transform into higher education institutes, did not warrant entering universities, and only prepared teachers for rural and city educational institutions.

The establishment of teacher training institutes According to the Regulation on City Educational Institutions and Teacher Training Institutes dated 31 May 1872, teacher training institutes began to open in Russia to train teachers for advanced public schools. These were vocational teacher training institutions funded by the government. Institutes were of a closed type supervised by trustees of educational districts and head teachers elected by trustees among those who graduated from higher educational institutions. Each teacher training institute owned a one- to two-year city college for student teachers to hone their teaching skills. In total, there were 75 students in each institute, 15 of whom were self-funded. Teacher

30  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin training institutes accepted men from the age of 16 regardless of their social class. Women were not accepted into these teacher training institutes. Teacher training institutes were usually the destination of those teachers who had already completed teacher training colleges or two-year initial training schools, had previously worked in schools, and wished to continue their education. The curriculum at teacher training institutes included almost all the modules that were studied at higher initial training schools: the law of God, Russian language and literature, Old Church Slavonic readings, arithmetic and prealgebra, geometry, history of Russia, natural science, physics, drawing, technical drawing, calligraphy, singing, and physical training. Some teacher training institutes taught handicrafts. Educational training at teacher training institutes coincided with that in secondary educational institutions in terms of the scope of syllabuses. The syllabus in pedagogy covered the following sections: mental, moral, and physical training; general didactics and teaching methods. There were no academic programme tracks. Some teacher training institutes incorporated modules that were taught at higher pedagogical institutions. The advantage of teacher training institutes was in their practice-oriented training. For that, each institute was supposed to open its own city college where graduates could teach any subject. The training lasted three years (Ministry of Public Education, 1875). In 1878, 600 students were studying at seven regular and two Jewish teacher training institutes. The most famous among them were the Saint-Petersburg and Moscow teacher training institutes founded in 1872. By the end of the 19th century, teacher training institutes were established in ten cities in Russia: Moscow, Tambov, Kazan, Tomsk, Belgorod, Vilna, Glukhov, Feodosiya, Tiflis, and Saint-Petersburg.

Early 20th-century developments After the First Russian Revolution in 1905–1907, when the population enjoyed significantly expanded rights and freedoms, teacher training institutes became open educational institutions that accepted any men regardless of their ranks and financial status. At the beginning of the 20th century, there was a tendency to open teacher training institutes in large provincial cities of the country (Shaposhnikov, 2011; Vershinin, 2011). By 1917, the number of institutes increased up to 20, and as a result, the number of students has also grown notably. Among pedagogical higher education institutions in the period 1860– 1890s, there were also institutes of history and philology in Saint-Petersburg (1867–1900) and Nezhin (1875–1900) which prepared teachers for public schools. During these years, the institutes prepared fewer than 900 teachers and so did not play a significant role in providing all Russian schools with teachers. Besides, teacher training in these institutes focused more on ancient languages. The Theological and Pedagogical Institute for women was opened at the Sorrow Church in Moscow in 1914. This was the last pedagogical higher

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  31 educational institution opened by the Tsarist government at the beginning of the 20th century. Some medical and psychological higher education institutions were also related to pedagogical education in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. The Pedagogical Academy that stemmed from Pedological Courses in 1907 and the Psychoneurological Institute established by an outstanding Russian scholar Vladimir M. Bekhterev in Saint-Petersburg in 1908 were the most prominent. Unfortunately, the Pedagogical Academy was closed after eight years because of the lack of funding. Several non-state-owned higher education institutions in Russia were opened due to the social activity of academicians and philanthropists. Examples of such institutions are Moscow pedagogical courses governed by the society of teaching ladies named after Dmitry I. Tikhomirov (1872), comprehensive pedagogical courses for women established in Moscow by Alexander D. Alferov (1906), and pedagogical courses opened by the Saint-Petersburg Froebel Society Promoting Primary Education (1907). A vivid example of personal commitment, philanthropy, and the common good is the two-year pedagogical institute opened by the Russian industrialist and famous philanthropist Pavel G. Shelaputin in Moscow in 1911. That was a higher education institution that prepared secondary school teachers. The Institute was administered by the Ministry of Education and the trustee of the Moscow educational district. The Institute admitted young men who completed the course in one of the higher education institutions. The Institute had five departments: Russian language and literature; ancient languages; Russian and world history; mathematics, physics and cosmography; natural sciences; chemistry and geography. Classes were divided into general classes for all students and special classes that taught secondary school subjects. The syllabus included psychological, pedagogical, and philosophical sciences: logic, general and pedagogical psychology, general pedagogy and the history of pedagogy, school hygiene, physical training, and optional music and singing. The Institute had well-equipped classrooms and a pedagogical museum. A well-developed system of school teaching practice let students master their teaching skills at the grammar school for boys named after Gregory P. Shelaputin and the non-classical secondary school named after Anatoly Shelaputin. These educational institutions, along with several other public establishments and museums, were also built at the expense of Pavel G. Shelaputin. Educational institutions kept in touch with their graduates by organising yearly conventions of teachers. At the conventions organised in 1914, 1915, and 1916, young teachers reported on pedagogical and methodological issues, usually followed by lengthy discussions. By 1917, the Institute had completed four graduations and prepared 95 teachers. A certain contribution to the development of teacher education was made by a non-state higher educational institution, Moscow People’s University named after Alfons L. Shanyavsky. The university was opened in 1911 at

32  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin the expense of the general and gold miner Alfons L. Shaniavsky and welcomed everyone wishing to attend. The best professors of Moscow University taught at the University. To enter the University, an applicant needed no documents except for an identity card. However, the People’s University did not issue any educational certificates and, despite its popularity, training there was more educational rather than professional. At the beginning of the 20th century, a better balance between teachers with higher and secondary pedagogical education was created. They all taught in the relevant sections of formal school education. Dmitry I. Mendeleev, an outstanding Russian chemist, and creator of the Periodic Table, who was interested in the problems of education, estimated that in 1901, there were ten thousand secondary school teachers in Russia, but only half of them had higher education degrees, they were mostly university graduates (Kryukova, 2006; Panachin, 1991; Shvakova, 1997).

On religious institutions The system of secular teacher education existed along with religious educational institutions. According to the historical data, schooling in the period of Ancient Russia (9th to 13th centuries) was connected significantly with the Byzantine tradition. However, in contrast with the Greek education system which prioritised private forms of education, the school in Russia was a state institution, since it was the state that was interested in public education. Therefore, the state power, as it strengthened, consistently tried to dominate the education sector. The most significant changes occurred during the transformation processes initiated by Peter the Great and Alexander the First. For example, in the draft ‘Rules about Education in Theological Schools’, a leading statesman and reformer of the first half of the 19th century, Mikhail M. Speransky, identified four types of theological educational institutions: academy, seminary, county school, and parish school. By the mid-19th century, the Academic Committee developed the standard charter that determined the legal status of theological schools and seminaries. The model of learning was based on a rigorous study of the Law of God, ecclesiasticism, prayers, and divine service. Future teachers studying in such educational institutions were supposed to educate children in the spirit of serving the throne and homeland, following religious dogma. In 1902, the ‘Regulation on Church Schools of the Orthodox Confession Office’ was adopted. It became fundamental for religious education up until the Soviet times when religion and the school were disconnected. The document determined the types of church schools. The first type is primary schools intended for primary education of children and adults (schools were further divided into literacy schools, parochial, and Sunday schools). The second type is schools for teachers, the main task of which was to prepare primary school teachers (Sinelkov, 2009). Traditionally, the state relied on the clergy in the education sector up until the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time, there were 60 theological

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  33 seminaries and about 150 theological schools in Russia. The main function of the Orthodox religious education was to protect the state ideology, i.e. to educate people so that they remained loyal to the state. Significantly, well-known Russian educators supported the ecclesiasticism of public (mainstream) schools. Nonetheless, it should be admitted that despite many shortcomings that became especially evident as scientific knowledge developed, theological schools played a prominent role in the system of teacher education in Russia in the pre-revolutionary period. A large number of such educational institutions helped to significantly reduce the shortage of teachers in the country, which was especially evident in the case of elementary school teachers. Thus, at the beginning of the 20th century, there was a fairly divided and not completely interconnected system of teacher education in Russia. There was a wide range of educational institutions of various types and levels. Among them were teachers’ seminaries, church and second-class teachers’ schools, various types of pedagogical courses and classes at institutions for women that trained primary school teachers, teacher training institutes that trained teachers for higher primary colleges, independent pedagogical institutes, higher pedagogical courses that trained teachers for secondary schools and others (Genkel, 1908; Ivanov, 1999; Knyazev, 1989). However, content, curricula, and quality of education varied significantly depending on their affiliation to various departments: the Ministry of Education, county councils, the Orthodox Church. For example, teachers’ seminaries, public schools, and especially schools for teachers, focused primarily on preparing elementary school teachers. They did not correspond to the level of education in grammar schools for men. The quality of teaching in one-year and two-year pedagogical courses was highly criticised. A major drawback of teacher training institutes was the lack of clearly defined academic programme tracks. The two exceptions were the Moscow Pedagogical Institute named after Pavel G. Shelaputin, and pedagogical courses at educational districts that trained secondary school teachers. However, the number of such exemplary educational institutions was not large. The uneven distribution of pedagogical educational institutions in Russia could be explained, at least in part, by the country’s geography. The high population density in the central and western parts of the country contributed to a sufficient number of teacher training educational institutions in several governorates. In the eastern parts of the country, the number of teacher training educational institutions, especially higher education institutions, was rather low. In some governorates, there were no such institutions (Piskunov, 1976). The situation was aggravated by the lack of a long-term state strategy in teacher training. This led to inconsistency and even contradictions within the transformation process. As a result of that and insufficient government support, certain types of educational institutions were closed. Thus, in the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the teacher shortage was steadily growing. Researchers estimated that in 1874 there were 46 different teacher training establishments.

34  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin Provided that the population of the country was 80 million people, there was one seminary for 1.5 million people. For comparison, in Prussia, that number was 300,000 people. There were 24,000 public schools in Russia with 875,000 students. This way, one seminary accounted for 500 schools and 18,000 pupils, which was barely enough, especially given that maximum of 20 teachers graduated from one seminary each year. So, 27 schools and 951 students corresponded to one newly graduated teacher. There were 193 teacher vacancies in gymnasiums and progymnasiums in 1900. The number of vacancies had grown to 2205 by 1914. In 1916, the Minister of Education Pavel N. Ignatiev reported to the Tsar that in some governorates the shortage of teachers in secondary and vocational secondary schools exceeded 40%. On July 3, 1914, a new law was published, according to which university graduates who wanted to become teachers were required to pass exams in psychology, pedagogy, logic, and methodology. Some academicians, however, did not approve of the law. They claimed that there should be at least two years of serious theoretical and practical training in pedagogical modules; otherwise, Russian schools would not have the good quality teachers that they needed so urgently. In 1916, the Journal of the Ministry of Education had it that, Today secondary school teachers in the vast majority of cases are not prepared for fulfilling their responsible duties. If we still encounter excellent teachers from time to time, it is indicative of a long and difficult individual work or the great natural talent. (Latyshina, 1998) Thus, the problem of enhancing the efficiency of training teachers and psychologists in the context of university education was quite successfully resolved. New approaches were implemented in several educational institutions. This was also facilitated by a rather liberal policy of the government which, as a rule, endorsed forward-looking initiatives introduced by founders, administrators, and pedagogical councils of various educational institutions. One drawback of such experiments in the education sector was its small scale. The system of teacher training was to some extent woven into the Russian politics of the early 20th century (Khabrieva, 2003; Krasnovsky, 1915). Students and graduates of various teacher training institutions were actively involved in the events of the First Russian Revolution of 1905–1907 and the February Revolution of 1917 (Dneprov, 1984; Dneprov et al., 1991). Students were dissatisfied with the restrictions on civil liberties, weak democracy, strict political control in educational institutions, problems in the educational process. For example, future teachers’ revolutionary sentiments and speeches in 1905–1907 were part of the students’ movement supported in many secondary and higher educational institutions in the country. The next Russian Revolution which took place in February 1917 literally stirred up all areas of social life in the country (Werth, 1994). The most

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  35 pressing issues and concerns of the post-revolutionary transformation were discussed during various meetings organised by different social groups: intelligentsia, military, workers, peasants, teachers, and others. It is significant, therefore, that the congress of secondary school educators in May 1917 raised the question of reforming teacher training institutes. The congress decided to take the following actions regarding the teacher education sphere: 1. Accept both men and women who have graduated from teachers’ seminaries and other secondary educational institutions to teacher training institutes. Those with pedagogical education and teaching experience will have an advantage. 2. Increase teachers’ salaries in view of little remuneration of the teaching staff at teacher training institutes. 3. Provide graduates of teacher training institutes with free access to all higher education institutions. 4. Allow the admission of women to teacher training institutes. 5. Recognise the need to introduce academic programme tracks in teacher training institutes and increase the number of teachers. These steps were not taken because of a new socialist revolution in October 1917. Nonetheless, many of the recommendations were implemented in the Soviet period of Russian history.

Summary and conclusion The history of teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia illustrates both its compliance with key global trends in this field and national peculiarities related to the country’s geography, politics, economy, religious traditions, customs, cultural and social factors. The catch-up economy of the Russian Empire, its desire to become one of the leading world powers contributed to a vigorous revival of the education system in the 18th century, and especially in the 19th century. The task was untenable without a large number of teachers necessary for a rapidly growing school system. The teacher education field gradually shifted away from religious pressure and was saturated with a wide variety of different scientific approaches, programmes, content, and types of educational institutions. Despite inevitable difficulties, at the beginning of the 20th century, teacher education met the needs of the political, economic, and social life of the country. The state policy at different historical stages was rather unstable under the influence of various political groups on the views of the Russian Tsars amid a traditional confrontation between the conservative and liberal forces in the government. This manifested itself in the inconsistency of reforms, insufficient support, and social constraints in the education field, which often benefited only from non-government and private initiatives and donations. The bourgeois reforms in 1860–1870, an entrepreneurial boom, the first steps in building a bourgeois society, all these caused radical social changes and made teacher

36  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin education more accessible for the lower strata of society, and most importantly, for women. As a result, training of a large number of democratically minded teachers laid the foundation for the development of the bourgeois pillars of the Russian politics and economy. External factors influencing the development of teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia were intertwined with continuous changes in the teacher education curriculum. First, the education system was eager to escape the influence of the church, albeit that influence lasted till the Russian Revolution in 1917. After that, this rivalry gave way to the debate over university teacher training and specialised teacher training based on the opposition between subject-based training and pedagogical training. This resulted in the emergence of several diametrically opposite views on the matter. A compromise view, however, was that the necessity of different types of educational institutions should be determined by specific goals of teacher education. This was reflected in the national approaches which teacher education practices were positioned on. A positive side effect of such debates was the development of authentic pedagogical theories, unique curricula, courses, modules, and practical training. At the same time, a fairly high international mobility of the intelligentsia contributed to the introduction of the most interesting foreign innovations into Russian educational practice. As a result, in the majority of teacher training institutions in Russia, a teacher training model identical to that in a number of European countries was formed. According to that model, the following aspects of future teachers’ training were essential: general education, methodological, psychological, pedagogical, and professional training.

References Andreeva, I. N., Butorina, T. S., Vasilieva, Z. I., et al. (2009). Istoriya pedagogiki i obrazovaniya: ucheb.posobiye dlya studentov vyssh.ucheb.zavedeniy [History of pedagogy and education: Textbook for students]. Moscow: Akademiya. Astafiev, V. V. (2002). Ocherki istorii Kazanskogo universiteta [An overview of the history of Kazan University]. Kazan: Izdatel'stvo Kazanskogo universiteta. Bobrovnikov, N. A. (1900). Vneklassnoye chteniye v sel'skoy shkole [Home reading in rural school]. Kazan: Tipolitografiya universiteta. Churkina, N. I. (2015). Modeli podgotovki pedagogicheskikh kadrov za rubezhom i v Rossii (XVIII – XX vv.): komparativnyy podkhod [Models of teacher training abroad and in Russia (18th–20th Centuries): Comparative study]. Sovremennyye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya, 2(1). Retrieved from https://science-education. ru/ru/article/view?id=19437 Dneprov, E. D. (1984). Shkol'naya politika: soderzhaniye ponyatiya i osnova izucheniya. Shkola Rossii nakanune i v period revolyutsii 1905-07 gg [Russian school before and during the Revolution of 1905–1907. School Policy: The Content of the Notion and the Basis of Study]. Moscow: NII Obshchey pedagogiki APN SSSR. Dneprov, E. D. (2017). Rossiyskoye zakonodatel'stvo ob obrazovanii XIX - nachala XX veka: sb. dokumentov: v 3 t. [Russian legislation on education in the 19th – early 20th centuries]. Moscow: Izdatel'skiy dom Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. Retrieved from https://ioe.hse.ru/data/2017/01/18/1114091595/Dneprov-text.pdf

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  37 Dneprov, E. D., Egorova, S. F., Panachina, F. G., & Tibeeva, B. K. (Eds.). (1991). Ocherki istorii shkoly i pedagogicheskoy mysli narodov SSSR: konets XIX - nachalo XX v [Essays on the history of the school and pedagogical thought of the peoples of the USSR. The end of XIX - early XX century]. Moscow: Pedagogika. Elnitsky, K. V. (1881). Znacheniye pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya dlya zhenshchin i organizatsiya zanyatiy v pedagogicheskom klasse pri Omskoy zhenskoy gimnazii [The importance of pedagogical education for women and the organization of lessons in the pedagogical class at the Omsk women’s gymnasium]. Sem'ya i shkola, 8–9, 120–137. Emelyanova, N. R. (2020). Obucheniye v gimnaziyakh Rossii vtoroy poloviny XIX – nachala XX vv. v kontekste sovremennogo srednego obrazovaniya [Education in high schools of Russia in the second half of the 19th – the beginning of the 20th century in the context of modern secondary education]. Sovremennyy uchenyy, 3, 38–44. Retrieved from https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42899407 Eskin, M. I. (1952). Pedagogicheskaya podgotovka uchitelya sredney shkoly v dorevolyutsionnoy Rossii (XVIII - nachalo XX vv.) [Secondary school teachers’ training in pre-revolutionary Russia (18th - early 20th cc.)] [Doctoral dissertation]. Moscow University. Gavrilichev, V. E. (1997). K.D. Ushinskiy o pedagogicheskoy podgotovke uchitelya sredney shkoly. Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye v sovremennykh usloviyakh [Konstantin D. Ushinsky on the pedagogical training of secondary school teachers. Teacher education under current conditions]. Yaroslavl: YaGPU. Genkel, G. G. (1908). Chto takoye narodnyy universitet? Yego istoriya, zadachi, organizatsiya [What is a people’s university? The history, tasks and organizational structure]. Saint Petersburg: SPb obshchestvo narodnykh universitetov. Goncharov, S. A., Goncharova, O. M., Frumenkova, T. G., & Kolosova, E. M. (1997). Pedagogicheskiy Universitet im. A.I. Gertsena. Ot Imperatorskogo Vospitatel'nogo Doma do Rossiyskogo Gosudarstvennogo Pedagogicheskogo Universiteta [Herzen Pedagogical University. From the Imperial orphanage to the Russian State Pedagogical University]. Saint Petersburg. Grigoriev, V. V. (1900). Istoricheskiy ocherk russkoy shkoly [A brief history of Russian school]. Moscow: Tov-vo tip. A.I. Mamontova. Ilchenko, E. V. (2004). Letopis' Moskovskogo universiteta [The annals of Moscow university]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo MGU. Iskhakova, R. R. (1999). Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye v poreformennoy Rossii: Kazanskaya guberniya [Teacher education in post-reform Russia: Kazan Governorate]. Kazan: Kazanskiy gosudarstvennyy pedagogicheskiy universitet. Iskhakova, R. R. (2002). Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye v Kazanskoy gubernii vo vtoroy polovine 19-nach.20 vv [Teacher education in the Kazan governorate in the second half of 19th - early 20th Centuries]. Kazan: Kazanskiy gosudarstvennyy pedagogicheskiy universitet. Ivanov, A. E. (1999). Diskussiya o problemakh vysshego pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya v Rossii na rubezhe XIX-XX vekov [Discussion on the issues of higher pedagogical education in Russia at the turn of 19th-20th centuries]. Pedagogika, 6, 83–91. Ivanovsky, V. N. (1904). O prepodavanii pedagogiki [On teaching pedagogy]. Uchenyye zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta, 71(IX), 1–22. Ivanovsky, V. N. (1906). O prepodavanii pedagogiki v universitetakh [On teaching pedagogy in universities]. Vestnik vospitaniya, 7, 109–135. Janković Mirijevski, F. I., & Felbiger, I. I. (1788). Rukovodstvo uchitelyam pervogo i vtorogo razryada narodnykh uchilishch Rossiyskoy imperii po vysochayshemu

38  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin poveleniyu tsarstvuyushchey imperatritsy Yekateriny Vtoroy komissiyey ob uchrezhdenii uchilishch [Guidance to teachers of the first and second categories of public schools of the Russian Empire at the imperial command of the reigning Empress Catherine by the Second Commission on the establishment of schools]. Saint Petersburg. Kalimullin, A. M. (2009). Istoriya Tatarstana i tatarskogo naroda. XIX vek: Uchebnoye posobiye [History of Tatarstan and the Tatar people. 19th century: Textbook]. Elabuga: EGPU. Khabrieva, O. A. (2003). Pedagogicheskoye obshchestvo pri Kazanskom universitete. 1900–1926 [Pedagogical society at Kazan University. 1900–1926]. Kazan: KGU. Knyazev, E. A. (1989). Stanovleniye i razvitiye vysshego pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya v Rossii (1905–1917) [Formation and development of the higher teacher education in Russia (1905–1917)] [Doctoral dissertation]. Moscow. Konstantinov, N. A., Medynsky, E. N., & Shabaev, M. F. (1982). Istoriya pedagogiki [History of pedagogy]. Moscow: Prosveshcheniye. Krapotkina, I. E. (2011). Kazanskiy uchebnyy okrug v kontse XIX - nachale XX veka [Kazan educational district in the late 19th - early 20th Centuries]. Moscow: Flinta. Krasnovsky, A. A. (1915). Vtoroy syezd po eksperimental'noy pedagogike [Second Congress on Experimental Pedagogy]. In Trudy i protokoly Pedagogicheskogo obshchestva pri Kazanskom Imperatorskom universitete (pp. 3–17). Kazan: Tipografiya universiteta. Kryukova, N. S. (2006). D.I. Mendeleyev ob aktual'nykh problemakh obrazovaniya [Dmitry I. Mendeleev about relevant problems of education]. Pervoye sentyabrya: khimiya, 3, 1–4. Latyshina, D. I. (1998). Istoriya pedagogiki. Vospitaniye i obrazovaniye v Rossii (X – nachalo XX veka) [History of pedagogy. Upbringing and education in Russia (10th – beginning of the 20th Century)]. Forum. Milyukov, P. N. (1994). Ocherki po istorii russkoy kul'tury (Chast 2) [A brief history of Russian culture (Part 2)]. Moscow: Progress. Ministry of Public Education. (1864). Sbornik postanovleniy po Ministerstvu Narodnogo prosveshcheniya. Tsarstvovaniye Aleksandra 1. 1802-1825 [Collection of decrees on the Ministry of Public Education. The reign of Alexander I. 1802– 1825]. Gosudarstvennaya tipografiya. Ministry of Public Education. (1865). Materialy po voprosu o prigotovlenii uchiteley dlya imnaziy i progimnaziy [Materials on the training of teachers for gymnasiums and progymnasiums]. Tipografiya Krayevskogo. Ministry of Public Education. (1871). Polozheniye o zhenskikh gimnaziyakh i progimnaziyakh Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya, utverzhdennoye 24 maya 1870. Sbornik postanovleniy po Ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniya, t. 4 [Regulations on women’s gymnasiums and progymnasiums of the Ministry of Public Education, approved on May 24, 1870. Collection of decrees on the Ministry of Public Education. Volume 4]. Ministry of Public Education. (1875). Polozheniye ob uchitel'skikh institutakh. Sbornik deystvuyushchikh postanovleniy i rasporyazheniy po uchitel'skim institutam, uchitel'skim seminariyam, gorodskim uchilishcham Vedomstva Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniya (1859-1875). (Dlya guberniy, vkhodyashchikh v sostav Moskovskogo Uchebnogo Okruga) [Regulations on teacher training institutes. A collection of existing decrees and orders for teachers’ institutes, teachers’ seminaries, city schools of the Department of the Ministry of Public Education (1859–1875). (For the provinces constituting a part of the Moscow Educational District)].

Teaching and teacher education in pre-revolutionary Russia  39 Ministry of Public Education. (1876). Sbornik postanovleniy po Ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniya. Tsarstvovaniye imperatora Aleksandra II (1855-1864) [Collection of decrees on the Ministry of Public Education. The reign of Emperor Alexander II (1855–1864)]. Gosudarstvennaya tipografiya. Nikolsky, G. B. (1821). Slovo o dostoinstve i vazhnosti vospitaniya i prosveshcheniya, osnovannykh na vere khristianskoy [On the dignity and importance of upbringing and education based on the Christian faith]. Kazan. Nikulina, E. G. (2014). Predposylki stanovleniya professional'noy podgotovki uchiteley v Rossii v XVIII veke [Prerequisites for the professional training of teachers in Russia in the 18th century]. In Aktual'nyye zadachi pedagogiki: materialy V mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferentsii (pp. 13–16). Chita: Izdatel'stvo Molodoy uchenyy. Osovski, E. G. (1959). Vyssheye zhenskoye obrazovaniye v dorevolyutsionnoy Rossii [Higher education for women in pre-revolutionary Russia] [Doctoral dissertation]. Moscow. Panachin, F. G. (1991). Pedagogicheskaya deyatel'nost' Mendeleyeva [Pedagogical work of Mendeleev]. Khimiya v shkole, 5, 11–12. Perevoshchikov, V. M. (1814). Rech', govorennaya pri torzhestvennom otkrytii Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo universiteta 5 iyulya 1814 goda [Speech given at the formal opening of the Imperial Kazan University on July 5, 1814]. Kazan: Tipolitografiya Kazanskogo universiteta. Pertsev, V. V. (2013). Gimnazicheskoye obrazovaniye v dorevolyutsionnoy Rossii: vtoraya polovina XIX – nachalo XX veka [Gymnasium education in pre-revolutionary Russia: second half 19th - the beginning of 20th centuries]. Nauchno-metodicheskiy elektronnyy zhurnal «Kontsept», 1, 36–40. Retrieved from http://e-koncept. ru/2013/13008.htm. Piskunov, A. I. (1976). Ocherki po istorii shkoly i pedagogicheskoy mysli narodov SSSR. Vtoraya polovina XIX veka [A brief history of school and pedagogical thought of people of the USSR. The second half of the 19th century]. Moscow: Pedagogika. Pleteneva, I. F., & Emelyanova, N. R. (2014). Podgotovka uchitel'nits v pedagogicheskikh klassakh zhenskikh gimnaziy Rossii vtoroy poloviny XIX v. [Training of female teachers in the pedagogical classes of female gymnasiums in Russia in the second half of the 19th century]. Vestnik KemGU, 1(57), 60. Pletneva, I. F. (1997). Stanovleniye i razvitiye vysshego pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya v Rossii XIX veka [Formation and development of higher teacher education in Russia in the 19th Century] [Doctoral dissertation]. Moscow Pedagogical State University. Rozhdestvensky, S. V. (1902). Istoricheskiy obzor deyatel'nosti Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya (1802–1902 gg.) [Historical overview of the activities of the Ministry of Public Education (1802–1902)]. Saint Petersburg: Tipografiya Ministerstva prosveshcheniya. Russia. Laws and Regulations. (1830). Ustav narodnym uchilishcham v Rossiyskoy Imperii. Polnoye sobraniye zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii (1830). Sobraniye pervoye. Tom 22. S 1781 po 1788 [Charter of public schools in the Russian Empire. Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire (1830). First collection. Volume 22. From 1781 to 1788]. Saint Petersburg. Shadrikov, V. D. (1990). Antologiya pedagogicheskoy mysli Rossii vtoroy poloviny XIX - nachala XX v. [Anthology of pedagogical thought in Russia in the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries]. Moscow: Pedagogika.

40  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin Shakirova, L. R. (2005). Organizatsiya pedagogicheskoy podgotovki v Kazanskom universitete v XIX v. [Organization of pedagogical training at Kazan University in the 19th century]. Pedagogika, 6, 90–93. Shamakhov, F. F. (1953). Pedagogicheskiye (vos'myye) klassy zhenskikh gimnaziy Zapadnoy Sibiri [Pedagogical (eighth) class in female gymnasiums in Western Siberia]. Uchenyye zapiski Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo instituta, 10, 47–102. Shaposhnikov, L. E. (Ed.). (2011). Istoriya Nizhegorodskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta: etapi bolshogo puti. 1911–2011 [The history of Nizhny Novgorod State University of Education: stages of a long way. 1911–2011]. Izdatelstvo NGPU. Shchetinina, N. P. (2011). Problemy narodnoy shkoly i professional'nogo razvitiya uchiteley v vystupleniyakh D.I. Tikhomirova na zemskikh pedagogicheskikh kursakh (90-ye gody XIX veka) [Problems of public schools and the professional development of teachers at the presentations of D. I. Tikhomirov at zemstvo pedagogical courses (1990s of the 19th century)]. Vestnik Vladimirskogo gosudarstvennogo gumanitarnogo universiteta, 11(30), 255–260. Shvakova, E. V. (1997). D.I. Mendeleyev pedagog i obshchestvennyy deyatel' vtoroy poloviny XIX - nachala XX v. v Rossii [Dmitry I. Mendeleev as a teacher and public figure of the second half of 19th – early 20th centuries]. Petrozavodsk. Sinelkov, S. P. (2009). Prepodavaniye Zakona Bozhiya v uchebnykh zavedeniyakh Rossii do 1917 goda [Teaching the Scripture knowledge in educational institutions in Russia until 1917]. Retrieved from https://bogoslov.ru/article/453126 Starshinov, N. I. (2001). Organizatsionno-pedagogicheskaya, deyatel'nost' i pedagogicheskiye vzglyady N.I. Lobachevskogo [Organizational and pedagogical activity and pedagogical views of Nikolay I. Lobachevsky]. Kazan. Struminsky, V. Y. (1952). Osnova i sistema didaktiki K. D. Ushinskogo [The fundamentals and system of didactics of Konstantin D. Ushinsky]. Moscow: Uchpedgiz. Ushinsky, K. D. (1974). Izbrannyye pedagogicheskiye sochineniya v 2 t. Tom 1. [Selected pedagogical works in 2 volumes. Volume 1]. Moscow: Pedagogika. Ushinsky, K. D. (1988). Proyekt uchitel'skoy seminarii. Ped. soch.: v 6 t. T. 2 [Project of teachers’ seminaries. Pedagogical essays: In six volumes. Volume 2]. Moscow. Ushinsky, K. D. (2004). Chelovek kak predmet vospitaniya: Opyt pedagogicheskoy antropologii [Man as a subject of education: Experience of pedagogical anthropology]. Moscow: FAIR-Press. Vershinin, I. V. (2011). Istoriya Povolzhskoy gosudarstvennoy sotsial'no-gumanitarnoy akademii (1911-2011): yubileynoye izdaniye, posvyashchennoye 100 letiyu vuza [History of the Volga State Social and Humanitarian Academy (1911–2011): An anniversary edition dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the university]. PGSGA. Werth, N. (1994). Istoriya sovetskogo gosudarstva. 1900-1991 [History of the Soviet state. 1900–1991]. (A. V. Varlamov, K. V. Iordanskaya, Yu. D. Ryzhkov, Eds.; N. Werth, Tran., 2nd ed.). Moscow: Progress-Akademiya. (Original work published 1990).

2 Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985 Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva

Part 1 1917–1945 Introduction The history of teacher education in Russia in the Soviet period demonstrates a striking example of the influence of a new political regime on the goals, content, and modes of teacher training. The October Revolution in 1917 initiated the establishment of an entirely different system of public education, which was distinguished not only by its mass character but also by different quality, approaches, and organisation. The changes began practically from the first days of the Soviet regime, despite the fact that until the beginning of the 1920s the country was in a state of civil war and foreign intervention, disorder, and havoc. In the early years of the Soviet Union, important government documents which focused on the fundamental transformation of the country’s educational system were adopted. In the context of illiteracy of a large part of the population, these documents were mostly aimed at forming the mass system of primary and secondary education. The educational policy was directly determined by the Soviet Government – the Council of People’s Commissars (Sovnarkom), and its implementation was entrusted to the relevant ministry, called the People’s Commissariat for Education (Narkompros). In this chapter, we first of all describe the initial steps of the Soviet government towards the drastic reorganisation of the Russian education system based on the communist ideology, social foundations, and political priorities. Then, we indicate that initially, politically motivated changes were not intended to completely destroy the former system. This led to unusual experiments with the different types of organisations and programmes. Many of the experiments were not sustained in the educational practice. The analysis of elimination of people’s illiteracy and the specificity of different educational institutions of various levels and types in the 1920s are of key importance. Furthermore, we describe the undoubted achievements of the Soviet national policy in terms of teacher education for numerous non-Russian people. These peoples did not have such an opportunity in the pre-revolutionary times. The moves towards a massive system of teacher education

42  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva in the 1930s, triggered by economic, political, and cultural development needs of the USSR, have a pivotal role. We demonstrate that the prevalence of rigorous regulatory and unification approaches to the state policy in the Russian educational sphere in the context of the monopoly of communist ideology provided a gigantic boost to teacher education. Also, it generally solved the problem of recruitment of the new-generation teachers, who were committed to creating the unique political and social system. Priorities for reform in education Among the first priorities of the Soviet system in the field of education was a struggle with the church and religious schools. According to the Sovnarkom’s Resolution On the Transition of Upbringing and Education from the Department of Religious Affairs to the People’s Commissariat for Education, adopted in December 1917, all religious educational institutions were transformed into secular ones and taken over by the People’s Commissariat for Education (Sokolov, 2014). In January 1918, the Sovnarkom (Council of People’s Commissars) issued a decree On Freedom of Conscience, Church and Religious Communities, proclaiming the secularisation of society. Among other things, the Decree did not allow teaching of religious dogma in any state, public, or private educational institutions, where general subjects were taught. Thus, education in Soviet Russia became absolutely secular (Council of People’s Commissars, 1957; Sokolov, 2014). However, with the elimination of Christian foundations and traditions in education, another extreme – the politicisation of the teaching process – quickly appeared. The communist ideology was a shaping power in the development of a new system of public education, one of the key tasks of which was to support the political regime. For this reason, the Soviet government gave unprecedented attention to the formation of a new type of the teacher, the Soviet educator, who simultaneously acted as the knowledge holder and as a conveyor of the communist ideology to the masses. This was most clearly reflected in the appeal of the country’s leader Vladimir Lenin for the social ascent of teachers: Public teachers should be placed at such a level which they have never had, have or will ever have in the bourgeois society. It is the truth that does not require proof. To reach this, we must work systematically and constantly both on the uplift and comprehensive training of teachers …. (Lenin, 1970) This idea was reflected in the main political document of the post-revolutionary Russia, The Programme of the Communist Party, approved in 1919. Specifically, it announced the transformation of schools ‘into an instrument for the complete elimination of the division of society into classes, into an instrument of the communist regeneration of society’ (Institute of

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  43 Marxism-Leninism, 1970). As a result, the ideological principles identified core priorities when forming the teacher education system not only at the first stage of its development but also during the whole Soviet period. The priority task for the Communist regime was the quickest possible resumption of teacher training based on the restructuring of existing educational institutions. By the autumn of 1917, there were 280 teachers’ seminaries and 35 pedagogical institutes in Russia. Teacher education programmes were also offered by universities. Over the next few years, it was difficult to make an accurate count of teacher training institutions since, because of the civil war, the territory regulated by the Bolsheviks was constantly changing. The lack of regular control from the People’s Commissariat for Education (Ministry of Education) led to confusion in the centre and regions.1 This reflected the general development trends in the post-revolutionary period which was characterised by instability in the country. The situation was complicated by the unpreparedness for governing a huge state by the new political elite, most of whom did not have higher education. From this perspective, the educational sector was in a better situation. The ministry in charge, the People’s Commissariat for Education, was headed by Anatoly Lunacharsky, who was not only a professional revolutionary but also a talented scholar, writer, translator, and an art expert (Boguslavsky, 1973; Zak, 1975). In his youth, Lunacharsky studied in Zurich University, lived for several years abroad as an emigrant, and was fully familiar with the European educational system. This political leader played a key role in reforming the country’s educational system in the first decade after the Revolution. His closest companions who took part in the reformation had wide experience and were influential and well-rounded public figures such as Mikhail N. Pokrovsky, Nadezhda K. Krupskaya (Vladimir Lenin’s wife). The development of a communist concept in teacher education occupied a prominent place in their political and social activities. The implementation of a new educational policy was accompanied by a desperate struggle with representatives of the teaching intelligentsia who refused to recognise the Soviet power and its reforms. At the same time, the reforms were supported by revolutionary-minded students, school teachers, and university professors who became the backbone of the communist regime. This phenomenon has come to be known as the ‘class approach’, manifesting itself in the ‘overpersuasion’ or ousting of all ideological opponents from educational institutions. Nevertheless, the Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of 2 August 1918 On the Admission to Higher Education Institutions in the RSFSR declared all higher education institutions open to the working population without distinction and irrespective of gender (Council of People’s Commissars, 1918). In line with a general policy towards the democratisation of education, all national, class, and other restrictions on the recruitment and training of students in universities were removed. However, this democratic transition soon assumed a special ‘Soviet’ character with the children

44  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva of workers and peasants having priority for higher education. At the same time, representatives of the upper and middle classes in the former Tsarist Russia had limited access to education. All educational institutions began to be considered as main instruments for the accomplishment of the Communist Party’s Programme objectives. Up to the end of the 1930s, the state used various mechanisms to regulate the class composition of students in pedagogical institutes. Benefits and incentives were predominantly given to students from workers’ and peasant families in the form of free tuition, bursaries, food rations, and career opportunities. The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Bolsheviks prescriptively established quotas for the admission of students from different social classes. As a result, by 1930 it was planned to increase the proportion of working youth in the first year in pedagogical institutes to 65% and in colleges, to 80%. This policy was aimed at promoting relevant views and ideas imposed by the political regime in the public consciousness. This political background determined the focus of teacher education development in the first decades of the new government. It should be noted that changes at that time were extremely diverse and would require a special historical and pedagogical analysis. A review of all of the different legislative acts, resolutions at various congresses, meetings and conferences, sometimes rather contradictory, could have taken up most of this section. Reform of teacher education Initially, during the transition period, the Bolsheviks (communists) could not pay full attention to the teacher training. Therefore, the first events were only attempts to ‘Sovietise’ the existing teacher education institutions. Undoubtedly, there was a lack of understanding about the transformation of pedagogical institutes, and especially about the curriculum content. On the other hand, there was an absolute belief that the training of teachers in a communist spirit was fundamental for propaganda purposes and for spreading the Soviet ideology among children, who would soon become the builders of a socialist society. This very idea was behind the activities of teacher training institutions, whose core task was to provide a rapidly growing school system with specialists. Thus, teacher education became accessible to large masses which, consequently, with the quantitative expansion taking a toll on the quality of the provision (Kalinnikova, 2005). Teacher education in the first decades of the Soviet regime, although focused on the school system, often was not in line with rapid school reforms. The aspiration for the quickest possible eradication of mass illiteracy of workers and peasants as a main pillar of communism led to the formation of a large-scale system of primary and secondary education. For example, at the First All-Russian Congress on Education (25 August–4 September 1918), a comprehensive school system with two stages, five years in the first stage and four years in the second stage, was approved. In total, this comprised nine years of education in the comprehensive school. This change resulted in the

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  45 elimination of different types of comprehensive schools, which had existed in the pre-revolutionary period. The constantly changing conditions and new requirements caused further changes in the school system, which by 1922 took the following form: primary school (four years), main secondary school (seven years), and upper secondary school. The general course of study lasted —nine to ten years. The specific feature of this system amidst the introduction of polytechnic education consisted in connecting each stage of training to a possible trajectory of vocational education. From the 1923–1924 academic year, in the countryside, schools for peasant youth with three years of instruction began to be created on basis of the first-stage schools. From 1925, the first seven-year ‘workschools’ were established. They complemented the factory apprenticeship schools focusing on the training of highly skilled workers. The highest level of school education could be attained at workers’ faculties, designed for the most talented urban and rural youth who then planned to pursue studies in higher education institutions. The most significant achievement in this initial phase was the introduction of compulsory primary education in the USSR in the 1930s. Many activities of the Soviet power relied on the public support represented by decisions of different congresses, conferences, and meetings. Initially, in the context of the democratisation of political life, they were a real mechanism for expressing a position of the masses, later turning into formalised institutes. For instance, the issue on reorganising teachers’ training institutes was discussed at the All-Russian Congress of Students of Teachers’ Training Institutes in Moscow in May 1918. At the Congress, it was decided to transform these institutes into four-year special pedagogical higher education institutions for the training of secondary and upper secondary school teachers. Concurrently, as a high priority measure, the central and regional authorities all organised short-term courses for the training and retraining of teachers who had received their education in the pre-revolutionary period. A number of teachers’ seminaries offered courses for the training of primary school teachers. By the end of 1918, over 150 such one-year courses based on an outline curriculum designed by the People’s Commissariat for Education were being run in the country. The system of short-term courses was quickly expanding, taking on quite different forms in terms of duration, methods, and the content of teaching. Eventually, some of them acquired more stable organisational forms when the duration of studies ranged from several months up to two years. For instance, in Moscow, people could take higher scientific and teaching courses, higher teaching courses at the First Moscow State University, higher language training courses, etc. Many of those courses underwent frequent reorganisations and mergers. In the context of an increasing teacher shortage, one of the forms of short-term teacher training for primary schools was the referral of the most skilled workers and peasants to become primary school teachers. The task of these ‘interns’, politically oriented towards the Soviet authorities, was to observe and learn from experienced teachers. It was believed that from such

46  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva observations they could be gradually retrained as teaching assistants and later become teachers. Various and at the same time contradictory processes took place in the field of teacher education during 1918. Given the insufficient attention from the public authorities, a non-governmental initiative, promoted at the All-Russian and regional meetings of teacher education representatives, such as researchers, teachers, and even students, was activated. This closely connected with the problems discussed at the national and local congresses of teachers, heads of provincial bodies of public education and others. Pedagogical institutes Discussions on the strategies of teacher education continued at the First All-Russian Meeting on Teacher Education held from 19–26 August 1918. It was there that regional delegates introduced numerous initiatives which reflected the whole spectrum of views on teacher training. It was not by chance that the issues on the training of new teachers for Soviet schools were of paramount importance in the Congress agenda. Welcoming the Congress participants, the People’s Commissar for Education Anatoly Lunacharsky noted: … [that] the number of teachers should be increased several times, I am referring to several hundred, thousands of teachers. We are now planning to establish a special type of educational institution for teachers. (Lunacharskiy, 1958) One of the important outcomes of the Congress was a decision on the creation of a single type of higher education institution for teacher training. Most delegates supported the idea of transforming teachers’ institutes, seminaries, and courses into pedagogical universities. The project involved the transformation of some teachers’ seminaries into three-year pedagogical courses. Students enrolled on these courses, in addition to general and pedagogical disciplines, studies a number of politics-focused subjects (such as History of Socialism, Sociology, Political Economy, the Soviet Constitution). Teachers’ institutes were given a status of pedagogical institutes and renamed according to a directive order released in October 1918. The retitled institutes aimed to educate the second-stage school teachers (6th–9th grades). The state commission of the Russian SFSR People’s Commissariat for Education introduced the new pedagogical institutes’ regulations which identified the main functions of the institutes and outlined teachers’ qualifications. Pedagogical institutes had four subject routes depending on the local context. The first subject route focused on physics and mathematics; the second – on natural sciences and history; the third – on geography; the fourth – on social sciences and history. The general programme of study incorporated three years of theory and one year of teaching internship. Such a programme structure resembled the pre-revolutionary practice but the

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  47 methodological framework of teaching was changed. Furthermore, the communist ideology prompted the change of courses’ content. By the spring of 1919, Bolsheviks controlled a smaller territory due to civil war and foreign intervention. As a result, there were only 32 pedagogical institutes which, nonetheless, were affected by famine, cold weather, and devastation. The majority of students had to combine work and studies which is why lectures were often held in the evening. Another requirement was that students had to teach at a labour school for —two to three hours every day. The reason behind this was twofold: the shortage of teachers and the opportunity to receive extra food during these hard times. Vocational teacher education At the same time, the government put efforts into establishing vocational education institutions that prepared teachers in addition to higher pedagogical institutes. This level of teacher education was specifically relevant because the main aim of education was to overcome illiteracy. Vocational teacher education took three years of studies which included two years of theoretical courses and one year of teaching internship. There were six advanced vocational teaching courses, 140 teacher seminaries (three-year), and 20 basic (two-year) vocational teaching courses in the Russian SFSR in 1918, but by the end of the 1920s, these numbers increased to 154 and 90, respectively. The vocational teaching courses paved the way for the creation of vocational teacher schools or pedagogical colleges. Nowadays, in Russia, numerous pedagogical colleges continue the traditions of the vocational teaching courses. The majority of vocational teaching courses were renamed as fouryear vocational teacher schools in 1921. These schools quickly filled a niche of initial teacher training; there were more than forty thousand students enrolled at the beginning of their work. By 1925–1926, there were 354 vocational teacher schools with fifty-five thousand students in the Soviet Union. As a rule, they had three departments: School Department, Nursery School Department, Cultural and Educational Department. Although tens of thousands of future teachers and preschool teachers graduated on an annual basis from these schools, there was still a national shortage of teachers. As a consequence, the People’s Commissariat for Education initiated a temporary solution to this problem by introducing the second-stage schools with a focus on teaching. Graduates from these schools could work in the system of public education. Institutes of public education The steady transformation of teacher education was interrupted in the spring of 1919. The Teacher Education Department of the People’s Commissariat for Education decided to merge pedagogical institutes with universities. In the regions where there were no universities, it was proposed to merge them with higher technical educational institutions. This initiative received

48  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva immediate feedback from People’s Commissariat and university communities. Despite the contradictory opinions, the People’s Commissariat for Education released Elimination of school’s parallelism in July 1919. The document intended to merge universities with the same range of disciplines located, as a rule, in the same city. The document also affected some pedagogical institutes (People’s Commissariat for Education, 1919). At the same time, it was suggested to create a new type of teacher training institute. Initially, these new organisations were called ‘3-year institutes of public instruction’ but eventually they were named simply as ‘institutes of public education’. This reorganisation was supported by the Second Russian Council on Teacher Education in August 1919. All teachers’ institutes and teachers’ seminaries were transformed into institutes of public education. This began a new era of teacher education in the Russian SFSR. The institutes of public education were multidisciplinary higher education organisations. The main aim of the institutes was to prepare ‘educators for work at all levels of education: preschool, school, and out-of-school.’ As a consequence, there were five units in the institutes: Preschool Department, Department of Primary Stage of Schooling, Department of Secondary Stage of Schooling, Labour Department, and Out-of-School Department. If there was a need for teachers with different areas of expertise, some institutes opened a Defectology Department, an Aesthetic Education Department, and a Physical Education Department. The institutes of public education were opened in autumn 1919 and by the end of 1920, there were approximately 60 of them with more than ten thousand students. Fourteen institutes of public education were given a title of ‘shock workers’ institutes’ according to the popular revolutionary terminology. These institutes were leading higher education organisations with a focus on teacher-innovators. The length of the study was four years and the academic year lasted for 250 teaching days. One of the advantages of the institutes of public education was that academics and lecturers were able to keep their job positions after the Socialist revolution. Therefore, there were many types of teacher training organisations in the European part of the Russian SFSR in 1918–1921: 18 pedagogical institutes, 19 institutes of public education, and 7 practice-oriented institutes. Nevertheless, this amount of institutes was still not sufficient to satisfy the rising demand for education. In 1918–1920, the number of schools increased by thirteen thousand but the number of students in the schools increased by more than two million. A rising number of nursery schools and kindergartens (for children under seven years old) led to the demand for preschool teachers. Furthermore, there were not enough teachers at orphanages which aimed to care for homeless children. As a result of World War I, the civil war and famine, millions of children had lost their parents and families. 7815 orphanages had 415,000 foster children across the country in 1922. At this time, Anton S. Makarenko, an eminent Soviet teacher, developed unique methods to teach children who were in dire straits. At the end of the 20th century, UNESCO declared that Anton S. Makarenko was one of the four great teachers (together with John Dewey, Georg Kerschensteiner, and Maria

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  49 Montessori) who contributed to the development of pedagogical thinking of the 20th century (Korableva, 2000; Yarmachenko, 1989). Institutes of public education turned out to be a temporary measure in the matter of teacher education. The People’s Commissariat for Education terminated their work in 1921. Teacher training faculties within universities became responsible for teacher training in some regions. Today, scholars emphasise that institutes of public education were unsuccessful due to social and economic problems that the civil war entailed. Practice-oriented institutes which aimed to educate teachers of all levels of public education were also closed in 1923. Teacher training in universities and the teacher education curriculum Since the dissolution of the aforementioned institutes, various institutes of education and teacher training faculties within state universities became the main higher education organisations that prepared teachers. Student teachers generally had four units of study. The first unit included public policy courses and some practical experience, involving politico-educational work, educational propaganda, and work at child care institutions. The second unit was comprised of the disciplines about children and school (psychology, pedology,2 anatomy and human physiology, pedagogy, the history of pedagogy, and school management). The third unit involved some special disciplines. The fourth unit included practical skills acquisition through the practical study of economics, machinery, culture, and traditions of the local community (Aniskin, 2011). This approach to the curriculum was a part of a popular ‘complex method’ which later was judged to be a mistake. Also, the fact was that the dominance of community service and teaching practice undermined the advantages of theory and lectures. Confusing and unstable curricula arose because of the poor organisational structure. There were no unified RSFSR and later, USSR, curricula for the first ten years of the Soviet regime. The People’s Commissariat for Education only had suggestions and a recommended curriculum for teacher education. Many institutes of education developed their own curricula and study programmes following the recommended structure from the People’s Commissariat. Educational processes depended on whether there was the possibility to teach subjects, the number of educators, and the local situation. Therefore, the aforementioned curricula and programmes had the following disadvantages: (1) an imbalance among social, special, and psychological and educational courses; (2) study disciplines were broken into too many knowledge domains; (3) a lack of consistency in curriculum and the underrated role of teaching practice. Curriculum discussions of the 1920s were of special interest as they influenced the subsequent content of teacher education. The most significant points were the priority given to the social sciences and to the development of teachers’ political views, the balance between theory and practice in teacher education, and some other concerns. For instance, some civil servants and

50  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva scholars overestimated the importance of student teaching placements and others emphasised the need for comprehensive higher education and theoretical knowledge. A number of teachers suggested more intense theoretical study and that student teaching placement should be at the end of the study programme. As a result, various institutes of education, teachers’ seminaries, and three-year teaching courses took this suggestion as the basis for their curriculum development at the end of the 1920s, where teaching practice was organised during the last year of study (Abdullina, 1984). Prominent researchers and social activists criticised this model of teacher education. According to Nadezhda Krupskaya, this approach led to the creation of a gap between theory and practice, and therefore, students from pedagogical colleges ‘became isolated for three-four years of studies, stuffed with book knowledge, which they never would apply to practice’ (Krupskaya, 1960). She believed that theory and practice should go hand in hand and be intertwined with each other. This view was highly supported by famous teachers at that time (Pavel Blonsky, Stanislav Shatsky) (Skatkin, 1961; Svyatkin, 1964). In 1924, Stanislav Shatsky introduced an original approach to students’ teaching practice. It was expected to be a progressive placement both in terms of quality and quantity (5% of teaching practice in the first year, 10% in the second year, 25% in the third year, and 100% in the fourth year) (Shatskii, 1980). Later the development of curriculum in the pre-war period was affected to some extent by those individual discussions. The unified curricula in teacher education were developed by 1927. The curricula increased the proportion of subject knowledge and the length of programmes and were also linked to a particular location (either urban or rural). The curricula were in line with the departments’ key study areas: physics and machines, natural sciences, society and economy, Russian (native) language and literature, foreign languages, pedagogy, defectology,3 and preschool education. Another problem was that the general requirements for the content of the courses were not specified. In particular, this had a negative impact on the core course of pedagogy. Before the 1930s, each institute developed their own course of pedagogy, but later this practice started to contradict a new document released by People's Commissariat in 1933. The document established strict regulations in education and, as a result, a unified course of pedagogy was developed. This course included the following pedagogical issues: the essence, value, and aims of pedagogy; the system of public education; curricula and schools’ programmes; teaching methods; the organisation of the teaching process; textbooks; out-of-school work; children’s communist movement; the teacher; organisational issues. A total of 150 academic hours were allocated for the subject of pedagogy. Programmes of study in pedagogical colleges New curricula and new regulations of pedagogical colleges in the RSFSR were issued in 1924. Vocational teacher education became the priority in the 1920s. The new regulations determined a four-year length of study for the

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  51 school, preschool, and cultural and educational departments of the pedagogical colleges. Later this was changed to a three-year programme in 1932. Furthermore, the national pedagogical colleges could add an additional foundation year of study. School students could apply to the pedagogical colleges after Grade 7. The first two years of the colleges were dedicated to general disciplines and were equivalent to the last years of the second stage schools’ programme. The next two years focused on professional training. Educational and psychological subjects were introduced from the first year of study: the first year – anatomy and physiology (two hours per week), the second year – pedology and hygiene (two hours), the third year – the specific methods in pedology and hygiene (four hours), and the fourth year – the history of pedagogy and student teaching practice (four hours). Student teaching practice was conducted at regional schools. Initially, the class-and-lesson system was predominant in teacher education; however, new methods of teaching were introduced as a result of numerous experiments (such as the project method, the team-laboratory method, and the Dalton plan). On the one hand, some innovations proved to be of high potential and fruitful; on the other hand, other changes were meaningless and adverse. For example, ‘the team-laboratory method’ was used in educational organisations in the 1920s and 1930s. According to this method, all students were divided into small teams to collaboratively engage in activities. At the end, students presented the results of their work as a group and thus, they were exempted from individual responsibility. The theory of ‘school death’, popular at that time, had a negative influence on the content of teacher training. It established the universal ‘integrated project’ system as the only effective teaching method and denied the need for future teachers to study any other particular techniques (Gusev, 1927). In 1925, ‘externship’ was introduced in teacher training. Its goal was to attract people without pedagogical education, but who had a certain training, to work at school. According to the special regulation approved by the People’s Commissariat of the RSFSR, graduates of Soviet party schools, political workers, and others could take an examination without attending classes. In 1936, more than 22 thousand people were awarded such an external degree without attending classes. Externship was cancelled in the USSR in 1951. The challenge of many nations within the Union In the context of the federal structure of the state (RSFSR), the problem of national education of non-Russian peoples of Russia, of which there were many, was no less important. It became more acute after the creation of the USSR when ethnic diversity in the country became even greater. On the one hand, it was a question of introducing these peoples to Russian literacy, since in the pre-revolutionary times the vast majority of them were illiterate. On the other hand, for some groups, especially Muslim peoples of Russia, the urgent question was to preserve their languages, writing, and culture. The government organised work on the preparation of national pedagogical

52  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva personnel and on the publication of national educational literature. The alphabets were created for the nations that did not have their own written language. In almost all union and autonomous republics, pedagogical universities and technical schools were opened. For most of the peoples of the country, these were the first secular educational institutions of this kind. For example, in 1928, in the autonomous republics and regions of the RSFSR, there were 9 pedagogical institutes and 47 pedagogical technical schools. Specialised linguistic departments for the training of teachers for national schools were created in Russian higher educational institutions. At the same time, a dramatic difference in the educational level, values, and image of many peoples of Russia should be recognised: from the nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle of the peoples of Siberia, Kazakhstan, Central Asia to the industrial life of central Russia or Ukraine (Semennikova, 1995). Tensions and contradictions Thus, the first years of the Soviet regime demonstrated considerable efforts of the People’s Commissariat of Education in the area of teacher education. As a result, by the end of the 1920s, this professional field was represented by educational institutions at several levels: • secondary pedagogical educational institutions (pedagogical technical schools); • higher pedagogical educational institutions (pedagogical institutes and pedagogical departments within universities); • pedagogical courses (higher and ordinary short-term); • pedagogical classes in second-stage schools. The short-term activities of certain types of education should be considered merely as numerous experiments in the transitional stage. In general, the processes in the educational sphere were similar to the ambivalence of the Soviet government in politics and economics in the first post-revolutionary decade. That gave rise to significant contradictions in the development of public education, which impeded the country’s economic growth in the context of the unfolding processes of industrialisation and collectivisation in agriculture. Significantly, the problems in the field of education in the USSR were recognised at the highest state and party levels. For example, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Russian Communist Party of Bolsheviks, held in July 1928, fully disclosed serious problems in higher education in the USSR, including pedagogy. Among them were highlighted: the absence of a close connection between the training of specialists and the demands of the economy, lagging in training and deviation from criteria relating to class divisions when enrolling in higher education institutions (universities), which was a specific feature of that time. In the field of teacher training, these problems were associated with the lack of a coherent policy in a new system of teacher education formation.

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  53 The processes of winding up and reorganisation of many pedagogical educational institutions largely undermined the positive traditions formed in the pre-revolutionary period. In a number of country regions, the situation became simply disastrous due to the formation of the Soviet system of mass, affordable school education. State campaigns against illiteracy (literacy project) as well as universal education (Vseobuch) required hundreds of thousands of new teachers for the Soviet schools, especially in rural areas and national republics that entered the USSR (Vasilyev, 1966). Challenges in the 1930s The transitional stage task was completed, but the country already had new goals. With the increase in the network of schools of different levels in the city and the village in the 1930s, due to the demographic rise and expansion of the USSR, the need for teachers grew steadily throughout the 1930s. Even though in 1930, 481,000 teachers worked in the country, that number was still insufficient. For example, in 1928–1932 alone, 40,000 new schools were built, the number of students in secondary schools increased from 12 to 21 million, and 29 million people were trained in literacy courses. As a result, in the 1930s, the state continued to search for new forms and programmes for teacher training. This was reflected in experiments with the types of educational institutions, the duration of studies, and the content of curricula. In 1930–1931, all pedagogical departments within universities were transformed into pedagogical universities. In turn, pedagogical universities were divided into three groups: • agro-pedagogical, training teachers for farm youth schools (ShKM) and rural nine-year schools; • industrial-pedagogical, preparing teachers for the factory seven-year plans (FZS) and urban secondary schools; • psychological and pedagogical, which trained teachers of pedagogical disciplines for technical schools, labour schools, vocational schools, defectologists, child welfare workers, inspectors. The duration of courses at pedagogical institutes training teachers for FZS and ShKM was determined at 2.5–3 years and of those training teachers for high schools amounted to 3–3.5 years. In the 1930–1931 academic year, a synchronous modernisation of pedagogical university curricula was carried out. With the introduction of universal compulsory primary education in 1930, the network of secondary pedagogical educational institutions – pedagogical technical schools (later pedagogical academies) – increased significantly. They mainly trained primary school teachers. Under the influence of the growing network of seven-year and secondary schools, in 1933 two-year teacher institutes were established to train teachers in grades V–VII. However, in the context of the demographic upsurge, the number of primary school teachers

54  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva was sorely lacking. Therefore, starting in 1931, several thousand short-term courses were opened in the USSR. Extramural in-service teacher education organised for teachers working in schools gained great scope. In the early 1930s, temporary pedagogical educational institutions – short courses, pedagogical practice, and secondary schools for teaching – provided about two thirds of elementary school teachers. A large shortage of teachers was experienced by high schools as well. It is quite natural that the increased number of children with primary education led to an increase in the demand for secondary education. Thus, the number of students in grades 5–7 alone increased from 1930 to 1939 more than 5 times, from 1.6 to 8.8 million people. If in industrial centres the situation was rectified to one degree or another, then the situation in remote areas of the country was truly disastrous. In connection with the spread of various types of schools, the training of teachers was differentiated in order to satisfy the needs of those different schools. For example, in the early 1930s, it was oriented towards the requirements of: (1) faculties and pedagogical school (pedagogical academies) for factory workers; (2) seven-year schools for factory workers; (3) schools for farm youth, etc. Later, some teachers were trained to work in ten-year schools. In some cases, teachers underwent complex training. In addition, specific problems arose due to the shortage of teachers of a particular specialisation under the influence of school curricula changes. For example, in 1932, new programmes were introduced in the main academic subjects, involving an increase in hours in Russian and native languages and mathematics. The quick response to that was an increase in the number of students studying these areas of specialisation. A variety of training for schools of various types entailed wide variability in the educational programmes and approaches to the organisation of the educational process. The situation was complicated by the instability of the curriculum, approved centrally by the People’s Commissariat of Education. Frequent changes in programme profiles, training periods, and a set of academic disciplines led to a noticeable decrease in the quality of training. The politicised nature of teaching led to a reduction in hours for major disciplines and an increase in classes in Marxist-Leninist philosophy, the history of the revolutionary movement, the Soviet Constitution, and such like. The time for training teachers in a particular subject specialisation noticeably decreased. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, only 30 percent of the total hours were allocated for this. Changes in school education, and especially the politicisation of school education, led to the fact that, along with traditional school disciplines (mathematics, Russian, history, biology), special training of teachers in social sciences begins (such as political economy, the history of the revolutionary movement, and socialism), as well as in professional (technical) education, labour, and physical education. Special attention was paid to the preparation of the latter since the influence of the party (communist ideology) on school education was steadily increasing (Krapivina & Makeev, 2006).

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  55 Therefore, the role of Marxist-Leninist upbringing in the educational process increased even more, especially in the context of the totalitarian Stalinist regime which was strengthening in the 1930s. The system where the teacher was obliged to become an active public figure, accepting the ideas of Marxism-Leninism and spreading them among students was finally formed. As the new regime strengthened, this function of the teacher in the school was consolidated and expressed in the creation of a local communist party organisation in each educational institution. Youth and children’s forms of communist organisations were also included in this system. Both ordinary pedagogical educational institutions and specialised educational and scientific-pedagogical structures such as the Academy of Social Education (later the Academy of Communist Education), the Karl Liebknecht Pedagogical Institute, and the Central Institute of Instructors-Organizers of Public Education, named after Litkens (1921–1924), were all oriented towards the training of such political educators and teachers. The tightening grip on education During the 1930s, the number of graduates of pedagogical educational institutions increased from year to year. The measures taken facilitated an increase in the number of teachers in the country by a factor of more than 2.5. That is to say, if in 1930 there were 481,000 teachers in the USSR, then in 1940 there were already 1,238,000. In 1930, a reform was carried out in the management of higher education. Within that framework, a new unit was created in the structure of the People’s Commissariat for Education – the Directorate of Universities and Pedagogical Educational Institutions (Demidova, 2007). After the scientific and teaching communities expressed criticism over some active experiments and a number of innovations in education in the 1920s, some of them were abandoned. Such errors were officially recognised at the state level, in particular, in the Decree of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR of 19 September 1932 On the curriculum and regime in higher education and technical schools. They pushed the Council of People's Commissars to return old methods to the educational process. In particular, lectures were restored as the main method of teaching, mandatory entrance exams, winter and spring exam sessions were introduced and collective tests were cancelled. This decree became essentially a programme document of the Soviet state in the field of higher and secondary specialised education (Central Executive Committee of USSR, 1932). In all educational institutions, the principle of unity of command was established, the authority and responsibility of the heads of educational institutions, heads of departments, and faculty for the organisation of the educational process increased; order and discipline in institutes were strengthened, a uniform model charter of the institute and college was introduced. Schools were transferred from a five-day to a six-day week with a six-hour school day over 50 school weeks in a year. This

56  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva implied the most intense and at the same time quick training of teachers, which schools so urgently needed. Based on this decision, curricula and programmes were again revised, in which at least 80–85% of the study time was allocated to general scientific and specialisation subjects. Particular attention was paid to disciplines that determined the specific job of the future professional. At the same time, some really useful trends were criticised. An example is the Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of 4 July 1936 On pedagogical perversions in the system of the People’s Commissariat of Education. It undermined the development of pedology in the USSR as a promising scientific direction aimed at combining the approaches of various sciences (medicine, biology, psychology, etc.) to study child development. As a result, the study of this discipline at pedagogical universities ceased, and special pedagogical departments were closed (The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Bolsheviks, 1936). The next stage in state policy to systematise the educational process was the Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of 23 June 1936 On the work of higher educational institutions and on the management of higher education (Council of People’s Commissars, 1936). It identified three main forms of classes with students for all universities of the country: lectures conducted by professors and associate professors; practical and tutorial classes; on-the-job (pedagogical) training under the guidance of specially designated teachers. Attendance at classes became compulsory, based on a fixed schedule. Exams and tests were approved as the only evaluation tool. For students throughout the country, a uniform student ID card and a record book, as well as graduate diplomas, were all established. From the 1936–1937 academic year, state exams were introduced as the final certification of students’ knowledge for their further work in school. All these measures contributed to a more rational organisation of the educational process (Lapko, 1972). In the 1930s, the main forms of training for future teachers were established as: intramural (residential full-time), extramural (without interruption from school), and evening (part-time). The regulations on pedagogical institutes of 1932 specified the establishment of full-time and part-time departments, as well as extramural courses. Throughout the Soviet history (1917–1991), all of these offered only free, state-funded training. The main one was a full-time intramural form of training, which suggested that learning is the main activity for students. The curricula assumed daily classes (except Sunday) for – six to eight hours with teachers and further independent study of disciplines, work with scientific literature in libraries, laboratories, etc. As a rule, in the context of a difficult socio-economic situation in the first decades of the Soviet regime, students of pedagogical educational institutions were provided with free daily food and accommodation in a hall of residence. Subsequently, meals were replaced with daily cash payments for students who successfully completed the curriculum.

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  57 A special system of professional growth was developed for certain groups of students. For example, these were students who had already completed teacher training courses or finished pedagogical colleges. Teacher shortages, especially in rural areas, prompted the demand for part-time study. In-service teachers had to undergo one- to two-month pedagogical training (with full pay) at higher education institutions every year. In-service teachers, therefore, could complete a full teacher training programme within several years, leaving their workplace only for a relatively short period, which did not affect adversely the educational process. Evening courses were similar to one- to two-month pedagogical training programmes in terms of content except for the fact that evening courses offered two- to four-days training several times a week at the end of the working day. As a rule, evening courses were more favoured among in-service teachers. Part-time training and evening courses entailed less in-class work and more supervised independent study. The main difference between the two forms of training was that the former was more convenient for rural teachers and the latter more for city teachers who lived closer to pedagogical educational institutions. The period of part-time training and evening courses could be prolonged up to one year compared to full-time study. However, primary and secondary schools experienced an acute shortage of teaching staff throughout the 1930s. The government began creating a new system of teacher training courses and programmes. It also launched a special campaign aimed at attracting fifty thousand young people (party and komsomol members) to work as teachers and study at teacher training courses simultaneously. As a result, within five years by 1932–1933, the number of students in Russian teacher training universities increased twice; in national teacher training universities – four times; and in pedagogical colleges – three times. During the same time, short-term teacher training courses prepared 150 thousand teachers and more than 100 thousand pre-school professionals. This was a huge expansion in the provision of training (Lyman, 2019). In 1934–1935, with the introduction of compulsory seven-year education, two-year teacher training institutes were established on a temporary basis. Such institutions accepted high-school graduates and allowed them to obtain incomplete higher education which then, gave students the right to enter higher educational institutions. At the end of the 1930s, there were over 200 teacher training institutes in the country as a whole, including 50 institutes in the RSFSR. The range and specificities of subject areas and teacher training profiles were gradually expanded. In 1933, the board of the People’s Commissariat of the RSFSR approved new curricula for pedagogical institutes and technical schools. Fifteen new model curricula for pedagogical institutes were introduced. The curricula were designed for four years of study and 5145 academic hours. The curricula could be slightly varied in cases when the specifics of national pedagogical institutes were taken into account. The 1930s were marked with such measures in the system of education as standardisation of programmes and teaching methods, complete rejection of

58  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva methodological experiments of the 1920s, teaching most subjects only from the perspective of Marxist ideology, with tight control over the educational process. Consistent teacher training programmes and textbooks were set to be used at the same time. They were focused on preparing teachers to fulfill the most important functions in the Soviet school which, to some extent, are in tune with teacher competencies today. In particular, the teacher was prepared to be: • an instructor who selects teaching materials, distributes work among children, excites children’s curiosity, reflects on their own achievements and mistakes; • a handyman or handywoman who can do manual work; • a master of rhetoric who can speak, write, and draw eloquently; • a methodologist who can aid and organise children’s mental work; • a social activist who is involved into community work and has civic awareness; • a person of culture who is interested in arts and creative industry (Gusev, 1927). Development of a new teacher training system occurred alongside with the establishment of its conceptual theoretical framework – ‘the Soviet pedagogy’. The Soviet pedagogy developed new approaches to teaching and learning focused primarily on the tasks of strengthening the ideas of Marxism-Leninism in the minds of the people. It is significant that Vladimir Lenin believed the main task of the new pedagogy to be the connection between teaching and the dogmas of the socialist organisation of the society (Lenin, 1974). The core values of the new pedagogy were humanism, collectivism, internationalism, democracy, and respect for the personality of the child. In view of this, the works of foreign educators-democrats such as Diderot and Diesterweg, as well as Russian revolutionary democrats such as Belinsky, Herzen, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky, and the teacher Ushinsky, all became popular. During the first decades of the Soviet regime, Blonsky, Pinkevich, Krupskaya, Shatsky, Makarenko, and others played a significant role in the development of the Soviet pedagogy (Belyaev, 1999; Bershadskaya, 1973; Boguslavsky, 1973; Krupskaya, 1960; Nevskaya, 2006). It is noteworthy that many ideas of the Soviet educators were confined to dominant political and ideological frameworks, the deviation from which entailed repression (Aronov & Kuznetsova, 2015; Gordon & Klopov, 1989; Khabrieva, 2008). Progress and problems of the 1930s In the late 1920s and early 1930s, the political regime in the country was tightened after the central apparatus of the Communist Party declared the victory of the Stalinist group. Representatives of various professional groups of the intelligentsia, including scientists and university workers, were some of the main targets of repression (Conquest, 1991; Djilas, 1992;

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  59 Kiseleva & Shchagin, 1996). There was a gradual displacement of the university intelligentsia shaped in pre-revolutionary times by the representatives of the new ideology, mainly talented former working class members and peasants. This led to an almost complete destruction of the caste system elements among scientists and university teachers that had existed in Russian education in the 19th century. Protection of the poorest urban and rural populations and restrictions for non-proletarian groups were gradually changing the social image of higher education. Women and the representatives of non-Russian peoples received strong support. The Soviet education system was thus ‘democratised’ and millions of children and illiterate adults gained access to knowledge. At the same time, this provided an opportunity for a social uplift for hundreds of thousands of talented children who then laid the foundation of the Russian science and practical activities in various industries and agriculture. High social workload of students was a peculiarity of the Soviet system of teacher training in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, students were required to conduct classes on illiteracy elimination and universal education, engage in extracurricular activities, assist teachers, and perform other social duties. Given the shortage of workers, students also worked in industrial and agricultural enterprises for at least three months a year. This inevitably distracted students from the educational process and reduced the quality of professional training. The social composition of student groups, including the references from the places where students came from, was paid due attention. Teachers also experienced difficulties. There were special party commissions in many universities that regularly decided on the professional fate of teachers. Even the political position of a student could cause the dismissal of the teacher. There was the case in the early 1920s when one of the students was selected by his fellow-students and recommended by the party bodies to lead the Institute of Public Education in Nizhny Novgorod. This was a clear manifestation of the superiority of political views over the professionalism of scientists, since many of the latter sought to sabotage the Soviet government (Shaposhnikov, 2011). Social restrictions caused a decrease in the professional qualification of teachers working in pedagogical educational institutions. In the late 1930s, only 10 percent of teachers had academic degrees and titles. This resulted in the decline of the quality of teacher training. Another reason of such a decline was that a large proportion of part-time students did not have the necessary basic school education. As a result, only 40 percent of students successfully completed educational programmes while 30 percent of students had to pass the programmes of the previous year of training (repeaters). Nevertheless, the progress in the field of the teacher training in the prewar decades was evident. In the 1940–1941 academic year, there were sixty-six pedagogical institutes and five pedagogical institutes that focused on foreign languages in the RSFSR alone. Overall, 56,000 students were trained to become teachers. 46,000 people were trained in 148 teacher

60  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva training institutes of different profiles. Additionally, there were 36 evening and 89 part-time institution departments with a total number of 128,000 students. This figure was much higher in the wider USSR due to the inclusion of the Baltic States, Moldova, Western Ukraine, and Western Belarus in 1939–1940. In total, there were 744,000 students in secondary and higher pedagogical educational institutions in the country (Panachin, 1975). The Pedagogical Institute named after Vladimir Lenin was the largest teacher training educational institution in the USSR. It also was the strongest scientific and methodological leader in the field, training more than 7,000 fulltime and 5,000 part-time students each year. During the Great Patriotic War4 (1941–1945), due to the occupation of a large part of the western part of the country, the number of educational institutions decreased significantly. Pedagogical institutes and teacher training colleges in the rest of the country underwent significant changes. First, there was a decrease in the number of qualified male teachers who, along with many students, joined the regular army. Secondly, there were changes in the organisation of the educational process as throughout the war, students and teachers were involved in various labour activities in agriculture and industry. Students also participated in teaching and mentoring work in schools, which distracted them from the learning process. Thirdly, evacuated scientific and educational institutions, hospitals, and other establishments were placed in educational buildings of many pedagogical institutions. Therefore, the educational process was adjusted to the most rational work in wartime conditions. Urgent measures were taken to speed up teacher training of people with secondary education. Nevertheless, the proportion of school teachers with no pedagogical education increased during the Great Patriotic War. Despite the wartime conditions, the RSFSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences was established in 1943 by the decision of the government. The Academy scholars focused on the study of the issues connected with general pedagogy, special pedagogy, the history of pedagogy, psychology, school hygiene, and the methods of teaching basic disciplines in primary and secondary schools. These issues were directly related to the training of teachers in the country. Conclusion 1917 was one of the most momentous years in the history of Russia as it marked the start of the ‘socialist era’ which determined the specifics of the country’s political, economic, social, and cultural life until the 1990s. Today, scientists have varying opinions regarding events and processes that unfolded during that time. One of the notable achievements of the Soviet regime, that did not receive criticism, was a massive rise of the country’s educational and scientific potential while most of the country’s population was illiterate in the Tsarist Russia. Severe conditions of the civil war and foreign intervention, economic devastation, famine, intraparty strife were

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  61 not able to fundamentally hinder the educational reforms. Vladimir Lenin and other countries’ leaders emphasised the importance of such reforms. A forward-looking, voluntary movement, aimed at elimination of people’s illiteracy, was nationwide and without equal in the world. Overcoming the difficulties of the transition period allowed major reforms to get under way at all levels of education during the 1930s. Their success was directly related to teacher education. The ‘Cultural Revolution’ movement became one on the key experiences in the Soviet history of that period along with industrialisation, collectivisation, and political terror. For several decades, the socialist experiment allowed the vast majority of the country's population, including many formerly discriminated-against non-Russian ethnic groups of the former Russian Empire, to access different levels of education for free. The result was also due to the new teacher training system that proved to be quite flexible and effective in building the Soviet State. The diversity of levels and types of educational institutes, and tremendous experimental work, aimed at the development of new programmes and disciplines, need a further investigation because some teacher training principles, established in the 1930s, determined the national system of education for long decades. The main achievement of this stage was an efficient state education policy. Although initially political leaders, managers, scientists, and practitioners had no vision of how to transform the system of teacher education, they succeeded in that task during the first two decades of the Soviet regime. Continuous experiments resulted in the development of fundamentally new principles, programmes, and forms of teacher training. Rigid secularism, and the ideological bias of teacher education, which enabled the campaign against people’s illiteracy, became the methodological basis for the transformation. Furthermore, the effective model of school and higher education was created. As a result, there were vast social benefits and their availability for a wider population, undeniable achievements of the Soviet economy, science and culture, and especially in the military sector, which allowed the USSR to maintain independence during the Second World War.

Part 2 1945–1985 Introduction The period between 1945 and 1985 is also essential for understanding the modern structure of teacher education in Russia. Reintegration into civilian life during the first post-war decade set the stage for the development of a sub-divided multi-level system of teacher education in the 1960s and 1980s throughout the largest country in the world. Drawing on Government and Party documents, a leading role of the Government and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in creating a single and deliberate policy on teacher training will be confirmed. The national development planning system relying on five-year indicators made it possible

62  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva to gradually solve problems in the educational sector by means of available resources. Hence, the consistent emergence of new, more serious challenges in the content of teacher education can be traced due to the succession of policy courses implemented by such Soviet leaders as Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, and Leonid Brezhnev. The second half of this chapter illuminates the state and issues of teacher training in the USSR in the heyday of socialism. ‘Developed Socialism’ enshrined in the 1977 Constitution of the USSR defined the final framework of the Soviet system of teacher education, the content of which is still preserved, despite the efforts to systematically destroy it since the early 1990s. Socio-economic factors of modernisation of the educational system Although in the 1980s the Soviet economy started showing the first signs of crisis, 40 years following the end of the Second World War (1945–1985) represented a period of significant recovery and stability in the history of Russia (Werth, 1994). The Soviet Union lost about 30% of its national wealth, 27 million people, 1710 cities and towns, more than 70 thousand villages as a result of the Second World War. The Soviet people managed to quickly restore and rebuild the country’s economy despite utter devastation, food shortage, and demographic decline. The country was quickly getting up off its knees, which was reflected in all areas of its life. The old education system, greatly curtailed during the war years, began to revive little by little. The school education system was fully restored due to the measures taken by the state which relied on its tightly planned economy. The school education system went to being a strategically important area of Soviet politics. The economic development of the USSR, massive construction of new factories, economic development of remote areas of a vast country required a huge number of new scientists, designers, engineers, agronomists, doctors, teachers, skilled workers, and workers. Therefore, accessibility and the quality of school education became the initial and determining factor for the entire education system of the country. Every effort was made to provide an initial comprehensive education for children from the age of seven in rural and city schools, especially in the territories previously occupied by the German Army. For this reason, until the mid-1950s, the teacher education system was mainly focused on overcoming the problems resulting from the Second World War (Counts, 1957). This encouraged the government to begin a quick restoration of the teacher training and retraining system which had been greatly curtailed in wartime. As these problems were resolved, the range of tasks that the teacher education system was facing steadily expanded. This stemmed from the rapid growth of the country’s population, fast urbanisation, and the economic development of Siberia, Far East, and Central Asia. The number of new industrial centres, new cities, and towns increased. The development of new lands and factories brought in new job opportunities, which, in turn, ensured

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  63 a healthy social and psychological climate in the country. People were guaranteed jobs, housing, minimal household goods and socio-cultural services, including accessible, and free education at all levels. In 1956, the USSR Council of Ministers reversed the decision of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Soviet Union about The establishment of fees in high schools and higher educational institutions of the USSR and the reform in the procedure of scholarship allocation which had been issued in 1940 (Council of Ministers of the USSR, 1956; Council of People’s Commissars, 1940). The post-war decades showed unprecedented prosperity and both qualitative and quantitative improvements in the USSR education system. In this way, seven-year compulsory education was introduced throughout the USSR by 1949. During the Fifth Five-year Plan (1951–1955), it was planned to complete the transition from the seven-year to universal secondary education in large industrial and cultural centres of the country. At the same time, while the number of teachers qualifying failed to meet the ever-growing demand of the rapidly developing system of school education, new requirements for their training and professional retraining multiplied. Thus, in 1950–1951, the number of students in Soviet schools reached 33.3 million and also, 1.5 million students studied in rural schools for working youth (Panachin, 1975). Given the vastness of the country, those 1.5 million students were unevenly scattered across Russia, from Europe to the Pacific Ocean. In view of that, schools in remote areas lacked students and required more teachers per student. Nevertheless, the state policy set out to support them. Government and party initiatives on teacher training These increasing demands prompted the government to accelerate the search for large-scale teacher training models. The advantages of the state-controlled economy and the distribution system of the USSR (through Fiveyear Plans) cannot be denied as they made it possible to concentrate and redistribute material and human resources. The one-party system also played a positive role as it allowed the ruling Communist Party to determine the long-term trajectory of development of education in the country. Therefore, any reforms, changes and innovative decisions were to be approved and documented in various decrees issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (the CPSU Central Committee). This was manifested not only in the tight administrative management of the Council of People's Commissars and the People’s Commissariat of Education but also in a system of monitoring by different bodies in the party structure. It is particularly telling that the overwhelming majority of educational leaders at all levels were members of the Communist Party. Local party committees were established in each school and higher educational institution. The Decree of the Soviet Government On the improvement of teacher training published as soon as 20 August 1945 showed that teacher education had become one of the top priorities (Abakumov, 1974). The decree identified the main tasks for enhancing the work of pedagogical educational

64  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva institutions. It also stated that those young men who did not finish secondary-level education but were undergoing short-term teacher training were no longer obliged to do military service. Another important decision was the diversification of teacher training institutions into several types, each of which was focused on different levels of education. Thus, teacher training colleges mainly prepared kindergarten teachers, primary school teachers, and physical education instructors. Teachers’ institutes specialised in the training of teachers for middle secondary school (5–7 grades). Pedagogical institutes to a great extent focused on the training of highly qualified teachers for senior high school (8–10 grades), as well as for pedagogical colleges and teachers’ institutes. Pedagogical institutes were divided into three groups depending on their size. The special regulation determined the number of faculties, divisions, departments, fields of study for each type of educational institution, the number of students, requirements for the organisation of studies, and the criteria for state funding. Thus, pedagogical institutes could have from three up to six faculties. There could be up to three divisions in teachers’ institutes (divisions of history and philology, physics and mathematics, natural science and geography). The All-Union Committee on Higher School Affairs (VKVSh) created under the USSR Government played a great role in the restoration of the teacher education system in the early post-war years. The first activities were aimed at regulating the training of teachers, which was partly lost during the war years, and at solving the issue of severe teacher shortage. One of the first orders issued by the VKVSh was aimed at developing part-time studies, officially known in the USSR as in-service training, i.e. happening during the time at school. This allowed the great mass of teachers, who did not have higher pedagogical education or who only graduated from secondary school, to combine their further studies with work in educational institutions. For such students, the length of the study was five years in pedagogical institutes and three years in teachers’ institutes. The duration of training comprised 30 days per year. The rest of the time they completed assignments at home and attended the one-day centres for tutorial instruction several times a year. Professional skills were developed during the scientific, theoretical, and practical training of future teachers. The pedagogical training consisted of the following components: acquisition of theoretical knowledge, independent work on the consolidation of the knowledge gained, and mastery of teaching methods. Part-time teachers received social support and a number of fringe benefits. During the period of study, salaries were maintained. Later, in 1951, the State Correspondence Pedagogical Institute was established for the methodological and scientific support of this mode of study. The Institute’s mission was to ensure instructional coordination of the whole system in other higher and vocational education institutions. Anticipating the growing need for primary education, the Government paid special attention to the training of primary school teachers, mainly realised in pedagogical colleges. At the end of 1946, they were transferred to

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  65 four-year instructional programmes (for 8th-grade graduates of secondary school). Along with this, curricula and textbooks were changed. As a compulsory measure, the 11th or pedagogical year was available in a number of secondary schools. 11th-grade students were trained as primary school teachers. Later, since 1955, two-year pedagogical schools (for 10th-grade graduates of secondary school) were opened. Changes in the content of teacher education These urgent measures substantially alleviated the problem of teacher shortage. However, the lack of teachers still did not allow getting full access to education in all republics of the Soviet Union (Panachin, 1975). By the mid-1950s, the country managed to recover almost completely from the aftermath of the war. The death of Joseph Stalin in 1953 created the preconditions for the democratisation of public life, ushering in a new era in the history of the USSR. The period from 1953 to 1983, associated mainly with the names of such Soviet leaders as Nikita Khrushchev (1953–1964) and Leonid Brezhnev (1964–1982), was known as 30 years of the most stable development of Soviet society. Some researchers describe these years as the onset of the crisis of the Soviet state and society. The full scope of this crisis became apparent after 1985. However, most likely it was another cyclical crisis that all economies in the world go through from time to time. However, the Soviet state was no longer able to overcome it. Nikita Khrushchev initiated a number of important reforms in the political, economic, and cultural life of the USSR. The country’s leaders felt the need for change, which manifested itself practically in all areas. In the field of school education, the objective was to switch over a period of ten years to universal eight-year schooling and then to universal secondary education. As a result, a network of general secondary educational institutions expanded in cities and rural areas. The number of evening schools for working and rural youth increased (Abakumov, 1974; Boguslavsky & Ravkin, 1994). A logical continuation of the school reform was the expansion of higher education. In August 1954, the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union issued the decree On improving the training, distribution and use of specialists with higher and vocational education. This decree entailed the review of curricula and study programmes, production of new textbooks, changes in the educational process, and planning for the training of specialists, including teachers (Council of Ministers of the USSR, 1954). In the field of teacher education, this was reflected in the reduction of teachers’ institutes: from 237 in 1950 to just two in 1956. Some of them were transformed into pedagogical institutes, and others were transformed into pedagogical colleges. This event marked the elimination of differences in the training for middle and senior high school. From that time teacher training became universal. Secondary school teachers were trained to teach their subjects in all grades of the secondary school. This principle has been applied in Russia up to the

66  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva present, despite the fact that joining the Bologna Process initially implied the differentiated training of teachers for middle and senior high school as part of undergraduate and graduate programmes, as we shall see in Chapter 4. At the same time, the training of primary school teachers began to be realised in higher education institutions. This finally removed old restrictions when primary school teachers were trained only in secondary pedagogical institutions, and middle and senior high-school teachers were trained in higher education institutions. At the end of the 1950s, pedagogical institutes began to open special faculties for the training of primary school teachers. In turn, it was specified that only teachers who had completed tertiary education could teach in middle and senior high schools. This meant a significant step forward from the echoes of negative teaching practice that prevailed during the war years. In 1956, 741,000 students studied in pedagogical higher education institutions in the USSR. There were 241,000 students in secondary pedagogical institutions. The annual number of teachers graduating from various educational institutions exceeded 150,000 people (Panachin, 1975). However, the adopted measures did not prevent teacher shortages in most republics of the USSR. For example, in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), the shortage comprised 25,000 teachers in the 1961–1962 academic year, in the 1962–1963 academic year, 50,000 teachers, and in the 1963–1964 academic year, 47,000 teachers. For this reason, subsequent governmental acts were passed to speed up the process of teacher training. In particular, a four-year teacher training programme with one specialisation obtained priority. Another trend was a focus on the ‘polytechnicisation’ of school education caused by the country’s economic growth goals. The policy documents of the Communist Party were focused on the ultimate engagement of teachers in the establishment of the Soviet economy. The orientation of teacher education to the needs of schools led to the changes in teacher training curricula. As an example, students from the Natural Sciences Faculty and Mathematics Faculty were given more intensive polytechnic training. A large number of faculties (Industrial-Pedagogical, Agro-Pedagogical, Art-Graphical, and Music-Pedagogical) were opened in 1959. This was the next step in the preparation of specialists for the conditions of the national economy (Afanasenko, 1960). At the same time, since the 1950s, the multidiscipline (dual) five-years education was introduced at pedagogical institutes. There were 12 teacher training programme specialisations (according to the curriculum of 1959): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Russian language, literature, history; Russian language, history, foreign language; Foreign languages; Mathematics, technical drawing; Mathematics, physics; Physics, electrical engineering, machine science; Physics, chemistry;

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  67 8. Chemistry, biology; 9. Biology, basics of agriculture; 10. Geography, biology; 11. General engineering disciplines, manual labour; 12. Drawing, technical drawing, manual labour. This structure of teacher training was mainly introduced because of the needs of rural schools. However, at the time this approach received mixed reviews. Many schools and university staff members cast doubt on the suggested teacher training structure. They thought that a single specialisation would be more effective (Kalinnikova, 2005). Since the middle of the 1960s, educational processes were clearly defined and regulated. The teaching workload was limited to a maximum of 36 hours (30 hours for a graduating class). It was forbidden to teach more than 36 hours per week in pedagogical colleges. These rules organised teacher education curricula in a clear manner. Content knowledge of teacher training programmes, the theory to practice ratio, the amount of general, subject-oriented, pedagogical, and psychological disciplines were all exactly defined. Philosophical, economic, and political courses had a special place in the curriculum since the authorities considered teachers as people who advocated the communist ideas in the USSR. The teacher was supposed to form the moral compass of children and to achieve conformity with communism. In the 1950s and 1960s, three and later four new subjects were included in all educational programmes: the history of the Communist Party; dialectical and historical materialism; political economy; and scientific communism. This policy was aimed to strengthen the ideological education of future teachers (Yashchuk, 2013). The professional development system for teachers from the pedagogical universities and the pedagogical colleges was developed in the 1960s. This training was conducted in leading higher education organisations. The immense territories of the country resulted in the uneven distribution of higher education teachers and different levels of their qualifications. The problem was especially acute for the newly opened institutes and colleges in the remote regions of the USSR. There was a specific hierarchy of pedagogical institutes. The institutes in the capital were on the top of this ranking, and specifically the largest one – Moscow State Pedagogical Institute which was named after Vladimir Lenin. This institute, as well as the pedagogical institutes in some capitals of the Union Republics, became the professional development centres for educators from regional higher education organisations. Furthermore, they were resource centres in the context of centralisation, because they developed the structure and the content of unified curricula, textbooks, and manuals. The final version of the professional development system was established in the 1970s. Teachers were expected to take a four-month or six-month training course every five years of their career.

68  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva In 1964, Leonid Brezhnev became the leader of the Communist party. He supported the moderate political course by contrast to his predecessor, Nikita Khrushchev, who was a reformist. The Soviet society entered the new historical phase. Later it was called ‘advanced socialism’. There was a significant economic growth rate in the USSR and this improved people’s well-being. The leaders of the Communist Party declared that the Soviet citizens were provided with new living conditions which are based on refined postulates in accord with the moment of history. The production sphere had to be organised in a way it completely supplied the material needs of citizens and the country. In addition, it was planned to form spirituality and morality and to give everyone the possibilities for multifaceted and harmonious development. (quoted by Valeeva, 2013) Teacher training at the apogee of socialism A new constitution of the USSR of 1977 confirmed the development of ‘advanced socialism’ in the country. As the main outcome, the new constitution guaranteed secondary education to all Soviet people (ten years of school). The Soviet school aimed to address general education tasks, for instance, teaching students the laws of organic development, laws of social and mental development, and labour-market skills. However, more importantly, the Soviet school intended to form communist views and beliefs of students and to educate learners in a spirit of rectitude, Soviet patriotism, and proletarian internationalism (Elyutin, 1957). Teacher education was not drastically reformed in the 1970s, but the content of teacher training programmes was improved (Slastenin, 1976). This was associated with the new resolutions by the CPSU Central Committee and USSR Cabinet On measures to further improve the higher education in the country in 1972 and On the transition to the general secondary education of youth people and on the further development of public schools (Golubeva, 1987). The pedagogical institutes introduced new curricula in the 1970– 1971 academic year. This was a standardised curriculum with a few elective subjects. First of all, the curriculum was aimed to strengthen the pedagogical and psychological aspects of teacher training. The following sessions were included: lectures, seminars, practicum, and school teaching practice. Moreover, students could choose specialised seminars, optional and elective courses according to their learning, and academic interests (Abdullina, 1984). The new curriculum determined the content of teacher education programmes for the years ahead and brought the following priorities: development of the creative and cognitive activity of pre-service teachers, inclusion in research activities, development of interdisciplinary relationships, etc. New methods to recruit young people to pedagogical institutes were created. This is one of the main achievements of this historical period. In 1969, the CPSU

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  69 Central Committee and USSR Cabinet initiated foundation programmes at universities, including the pedagogical institutes. The aim of the programmes was to attract young workers and rural youth to universities despite their insufficient educational background. They could learn full-time and parttime at the foundation programmes for —eight to ten months. As a general rule, students needed a recommendation from political party associations, Young Communist League, and labour union organisations. Those who completed preparatory courses and successfully passed final exams enrolled at universities without any further exams. It was a real social and educational elevator to ensure young people’s mobility. In the early 1970s, there were over 100 preparatory departments in the country’s teacher training universities. In addition, a network of full-time and part-time courses, lectures, seminars, and study support centres for applicants was created, where about 100 thousand people were trained annually. A system of academic competitions, schools of young technicians, mathematicians, physicists, and others was built. This attracted talented school leavers to teacher training universities. Along with the higher status of the teaching profession in Soviet society, this made it possible to raise the prestige of teacher training universities. As a result, in 1970, the total competition amounted to three candidates for each student position at teacher training universities, and at teacher training colleges there was an average of 2.5 applicants per place. Despite a noticeable increase in living standards in the USSR in the 1970s, the teacher did not receive any new legislative status, as happened in some other countries. However, the social status of a teacher in Soviet society reached its climax. The pay and working conditions, housing and living conditions, medical care, and the representation of teachers in public and political organisations were consistently improving. Teachers were sincere bearers of Soviet values and identities, which teachers themselves began to form in teacher training institutions (Panachin, 1975). All excellent students who studied full-time at universities and vocational schools alike were guaranteed educational allowances from the state. Through the distribution scheme, the state also guaranteed each graduate of a vocational school or higher educational institution employment and a job in the teaching profession. Thus, in the 1970s, the system of teacher education in the country finally took its contemporary shape, and its main features have survived to the present. The first level was represented by vocational schools, i.e. teacher training colleges, including the teacher training colleges with a focus on industry and teacher training colleges with a focus on music. The second level involved teacher training institutes and classical universities (Churkina, 2015). Teacher training colleges trained primary school teachers and preschool teachers. The study programme was designed to last four years for eighthgrade pupils, and two years for tenth-grade pupils of secondary schools. The educational process there was more practice-oriented, in contrast to higher educational institutions. For eighth-grade pupils, the programme included general educational subjects from the secondary school curriculum alongside professional courses on teaching methods, anatomy and physiology of

70  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva children, school hygiene, psychology, pedagogy, teaching practice, etc. The curriculum for those who finished secondary school excluded general educational subjects and provided only professional training. Some of the graduates of teacher training colleges continued their studies at teacher training universities in shortened programmes. They had the opportunity to continue with their major or to learn a new subject area. Teacher training institutes and classical universities mainly trained teachers for secondary school across the entire spectrum of school subjects. The system of higher teacher training education was also quite flexible. For example, part of the majors involved a four-year period of study: Russian language and literature, native language and literature, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geography, history, drawing and technical drawing, pedagogy and psychology (preschool), defectology, physical education, music and singing, pedagogy and scientific teaching methodology. However, in the 1980s, fiveyear training in two subject areas became more common: physics and mathematics, biology and chemistry, geography and biology, foreign languages (English and German, Spanish and English). The curricula did not yet imply structural division into sections and included disciplines common to all subject areas: the history of the CPSU, Marxist-Leninist philosophy, political economy, scientific communism (the foundations of Marxist-Leninist ethics and aesthetics and the foundations of scientific atheism were optionally studied), pedagogy, pedagogic history, psychology, subject teaching methods, school hygiene, physical education. A significant share was occupied by majors in the chosen area of expertise that is the student's chosen subject specialism. It must be admitted that teacher training in classical universities was to a great degree relatively formal. In a number of majors, only short courses in pedagogy, psychology and teaching methods were included in the basic five-year curricula. However, this allowed university graduates to obtain additional qualifications as a ‘teacher’ and begin their careers as a school teacher. As a rule, such teachers had more fundamental subject training and were oriented to working in schools with an in-depth study of subjects. Graduates of colleges and institutes of physical education and arts also worked in schools. It can be argued that in the 1970s an effective and flexible system of teacher education was created in the Soviet Union. This made it possible to satisfy the needs of preschool and school education in relation to both quality and quantity. In the mid-1970s, teacher training was provided by over 400 teacher training colleges (about 300 thousand students), 199 teacher training institutes and 63 universities. In 1974, 2.4 million teachers worked in comprehensive schools [15, p. 209]. However, in 1970–1980, there was a reduction in the number of teacher training universities in the country (compared to 1960 by 40 units), while the turn-out of qualified workers who came to work in schools is increasing. So, in 1975, university graduates accounted for 15% of the annual recruitment of schools with young teachers (Panachin, 1975).

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  71 Conclusion Summing up the second part of this chapter, it can be stated that teacher education in the USSR in 1945–1985 was closely intertwined with the historical realities of Soviet society. The phenomenally rapid post-war recovery of the Soviet economy was accompanied by active capacity building in education and research and the development of large-scale multi-level training of highly qualified professionals for all spheres of life. This was clearly demonstrated not only by subsequent increase in the accessibility and quality of education, but also by outstanding achievements of Soviet scientists in the nuclear, space, and other technological industries. Despite a noticeable increase in the self-consciousness of Soviet people, associated with the victory over Fascist Germany, the development of education and science was accompanied by a struggle against any deviations from ideological requirements, especially in the late Stalinist period (1945–1953). However, they were slightly weakened during the years of the ‘Khrushchev thaw’ (1955–1964) and took on a well-ordered controlling character during the administration of Leonid Brezhnev and his successors (1964–1985). The party and the government consolidated their influence on teacher education by tightly monitoring the curriculum, the content of the training, the system of compulsory employment for each graduate of a vocational and higher education institution in the field they majored in. A key feature of the Soviet system of teacher education was a strict unification of teacher training. The Soviet teacher education model was largely broadcast to the countries of the socialist camp during this period. This made high mobility of teaching staff possible and created incentives for relocating and finding employment throughout the country without any discrimination or restrictions. Vocational or higher teacher training education document obtained from an educational institution was legitimate in all 15 republics of the Soviet Union. This also concerned the training of teachers even for the most remote regions of the USSR, where graduates of teacher training educational institutions were sent on a compulsory basis. It was this Soviet system that determined the further development of teacher training in Russia and post-Soviet countries after the collapse of the USSR. That was a giant and rather an effective mechanism based on rigid planning and regulation of the teacher training process. The system prepared teachers not only for their profession but also for the promotion of communist (socialist) values in school. Despite the deeply political nature of teacher education from the standpoint of communist ideology, it had an explicit social dimension which was manifested in such general principles of Soviet education as accessibility, large-scale participation, being free of charge, and equality. The supreme authority and status of teachers in the Soviet Union were supported not only by government and party decrees but also by public organisations and large-scale promotions of the teaching profession in newspapers, television, and cinema. This helped to attract a large number of talented young people with high professional motivation to teacher training institutions.

72  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva At the same time, in the late Brezhnev era, the first signs of economic and social stagnation began to appear. This marked the beginning of destruction of socialist principles in the USSR.

Notes 1 To understand the historical context, it is necessary to clarify that the initial period implies the processes that took place within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), which after 30 December 1922, became part of a huge country – the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), consisting of several republics. 2 Pedology is a now obsolete term which means the scientific study of the life and development of children. 3 Defectology may be understood as being roughly equivalent what might now be called special education. 4 As the second world war was known in the USSR.

References Abakumov, A. A. (Ed.). (1974). Narodnoe obrazovanie v SSSR. Obshcheobrazovatelnaya shkola: sbornik documentov: 1917–1973 [Public education in USSR. General education school: collection of documents: 1917–1973]. Pedagogika. Abdullina, O. A. (1984). Obshchepedagogicheskaya podgotovka uchitelya v sisteme visshego pedagogicheskogo obrazovania [General teacher training in the system of higher teacher education system]. Prosveshchenie. Afanasenko, E. I. (1960). Doklad na Vserossiiskom siezde uchitelei [The presentation at the Russian Congress of Teachers]. Sovetskaya Pedagogika, 9, 31. Aniskin, V. N. (Ed.). (2011). Istoriya Povolzhskoy gosudarstvennoy sotsial'no-gumanitarnoy akademii (1911–2011): yubileynoye izdaniye, posvyashchennoye 100 letiyu vuza [History of the Volga State Social and Humanitarian Academy (1911–2011): an anniversary edition dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the university]. Izdatelstvo PGSGA. Aronov, A. A., & Kuznetsova, O. A. (2015). Sotsialno-pedagogicheskii experiment A.S. Makarenko v godi boev za novyu pedagogiku [Social and educational experiment of Anton Makarenko during confrontation for a new pedagogy]. Mir obrazovania – obrazovanie v mire, 3(59), 7. Belyaev, V. I. (1999). Stanovlenie i razvitie innovatsionnoi kontsertsii S.T. Shatskogo [Formation and development of Shatskii’s innovative perspective]. Academy MNEPU. Bershadskaya, D. S. (1973). Pedagogicheskaya deyatelnost i vsglyadi S.T. Shatskogo [Educational activity and views of Stanislav Shatskii]. Prosveshchenie. Boguslavsky, M. V. (1973). Sushchnost i predeli sotsialno-lichnostnoi pedagogiki A.S. Makarenko [Essence and scope of personal and social pedagogy of Anton Makarenko]. Narodnoe obrazovanie, 6, 231–236. Boguslavsky, M. V., & Ravkin, Z. I. (1994). Razvitie obshchego srednego obrazovania: problemi i reshenia [The development of general secondary education: problems and solutions]. Institut strategii razvitia obrazovania Rossiiskoi Akademii Obrazovania. Central Executive Committee of USSR. (1932, September 19). Ob uchebnikh programmakh i rezhime v vishei shkole i tekhnikumakh [About educational programmes

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  73 and regulations in higher and vocational education]. http://www.consultant.ru/ cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&base=ESU&n=21432#037847607202350186 Churkina, N. I. (2015). Modeli podgotovki pedagogicheskikh kadrov za rubezhom i v Rossii (18-20 veka): comparativnii podkhod [The models of teacher education in foreign countries and in Russia (18th-20th Century): comparative approach]. Sovremennie problemi nauki i obrazovania, 2(1). Conquest, R. (1991). Bolshoi terror [The great terror] (L. Vladimirov, Trans.). Rakstniex. Council of Ministers of the USSR. (1956, June 6). Postanovlenie ob otmene plati za obuchenie v uchebnikh zavedeniakh [Resolution on full tuition fee waiver in educational institutes]. https://www.alexanderyakovlev.org/almanah/inside/ almanah-doc/1025417 Council of Ministers of the USSR. (1954, August 30). Ob uluchshenii podgotovki, raspredelenia i ispolzovania spetsialistov c visshim i srednim spetsialnim obrazovaniem [On the improvement of training, allocation and employment of professionals with higher and vocational qualifications]. http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/ online.cgi?req=doc&base=ESU&n=543#07542124428563286 Council of People’s Commissars. (1918, August 2). O pravilakh priema v visshie uchebnie zavedenia RSFSR [Admission policies to higher education organisations RSFSR]. http://docs.historyrussia.org/ru/nodes/12389-2-avgusta-dekret-opravilah-priema-v-vysshie-uchebnye-zavedeniya-rsfsr Council of People’s Commissars. (1936, June 23). O rabote visshikh uchebnikh zavedenii i o rukovodstve visshei shkoloi [About higher education organisations and higher education management]. http://www.libussr.ru/doc_ussr/ussr_4080.htm Council of People’s Commissars. (1940, October 26). Ob ustanovlenii platnosti obuchenia v starshikh klassakh srednikh shkol i v visshikh uchebnikh zavedeniyakh SSSR i ob izmenenii poryadka naznachenia stipendii [Establishment of fees in high school and higher education organisations of USSR and change to the allocation of scholarships]. https://taii-liira.livejournal.com/148017.html Counts, G. S. (1957). The challenge of Soviet Education. New York: McGraw Hill. Council of People’s Commissars. (1957). Decret o svobode, tserkovnikh, i religioznikh obshchestvakh 20 yanvarya (2 fevralya) 1918 [The Soviet Decree on the freedom of conscience, the church and religious community from January 20, 1918]. Demidova, E. I. (2007). Stanovlenie i razvitie sovetskoi vysshei shkoli v 20-30 godi [Formation and development of the Soviet higher education in the 1920-1930s] [Doctoral dissertation, Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov]. Dissercat. https://www.dissercat.com/content/stanovlenie-i-razvitie-sovetskoi-vyssheishkoly-v-1920-1930-gg Djilas, M. (1992). Litso totalitarisma [The face of totalitarianism]. Novosti. Elyutin, V. P. (1957). Visshaya shkola obshchestva razvitogo sotsialisma [Higher Education Society of Developed Socialism]. Visshaya shkola. Golubeva, N. E. (1987). Narodnoe obrazovanie v SSSR: sbornik normativnikh aktov [Public education in USSR: volume of regulatory acts]. Uridicheskaya literatura. Gordon, L. A., & Klopov, E. V. (1989). Chto eto bilo? Razmishlenia o predposilkakh i itogakh togo, chto sluchilos s nami v 30-40 godi [What was that? Reflections on prerequisites and outcomes of what happened to us in the 1930–1940s]. Izdatelstvo Politicheskoi Literaturi. Gusev, S. I. (1927). Analis pedagogicheskoy professii v podgotovke pedagoga [The analysis of teaching profession in teacher training]. Narodnoe prosveshchenie, 8, 111–120.

74  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva Institute of Marxism-Leninism. (1970). KPSS v rezolutsiyakh i resheniyakh siezdov, konferentsii, plenumov TSK [Communist Party of the Soviet Union via resolutions, congress’ decrees, conferences, plenum of central committee]. Politizdat. Kalinnikova, N. G. (2005). Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie v Rossii: uroki istorii [Teacher education in Russia: the history lessons]. Voprosi obrazovania, 4, 304–318. Khabrieva, O. A. (2008). Razvitie pedagogicheskoy musli v Kazanskom universite v pervoi chetverti 20 stoletia [The development of pedagogical ideas in Kazan University in the first quarter of the 20th century]. Mir obrazovania – obrazovanie v mire, 3, 12. Kiseleva, A. F., & Shchagin, E. M. (Eds.). (1996). Khrestomatia po otechestvennoi istorii: 1914–1945 godi [Chrestomathy of national history: 1914–1945]. Gumanitarnii izdatelskii tsenter Vlados. Korableva, T. F. (2000). Filosofsko-eticheskie aspekti teorii kollektiva A. S. Makarenko [Philosophical and ethical aspects of the group theory by Anton Makarenko]. Krapivina, N. S., & Makeev, N. A. (2006). Sovetskaya sistema prosvesccheni: printsipi formirovania, osobennosti funktsionirovania, regionalnaya spetsifika (1917–1936). Istoricheskie i pravovie aspekti [The Soviet system of education: development principles, functioning features, local aspects (1917–1936)]. Izdatelstvo Yuridicheskogo universiteta. Krupskaya, N. K. (1960). Ob uchitele [About teacher]. Lapko, A. F. (1972). Razvitie visshego obrazovania v SSSR v period trekh pervikh pyatiletok [The development of higher education in USSR during the first three fiveyear industrial plans]. Uspekhi matematicheskikh nauk, 27(6), 5–6. Lenin, V. I. (1970). Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete works] (Vol. 45). Izdatelstvo politicheskoy literaturi. Lenin, V. I. (1974). Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete works] (Vol. 36). Izdatelstvo politicheskoy literature. Lyman, I. (2019). Osobennosti razvitia visshego pedagogicheskego obrazovania v SSSR (1920–1935) [Peculiarities of the development of higher teacher education in the USSR (1920–1935)]. Personal site of the historian of Ukraine. https://www.ilyman.name/BerdjanskPedKursy/History/1.html. Lunacharskiy, A. V. (1958). O narodnom obrazovanii [On public education]. Izdatelstvo APN RSFSR. Nevskaya, S. S. (2006). Vospitanie grazhdanina v pedagogike A. S. Makarenko [Education for citizenship by Anton Makaerenko]. Akademicheskii proekt, Alma Master. Panachin, F. G. (1975). Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie v SSSR: Vazhneishie etapi istorii i sovremennoe sostoyanie [Teacher education in the USSR: the most important time periods and contemporary state]. Pedagogika. People’s Commissariat for Education. (1919, July 24). Ob ustranenii parallelizma v visshey shkole [Elimination of parallelism in higher education]. Izvestia VTSIK. Semennikova, L. I. (1995). Rossia v mirovom soobshchestve tsivilizatsii [Russia in the world society of civilisations]. Kursiv Bryansk. Shaposhnikov, L. E. (Ed.). (2011). Istoriya Nizhegorodskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta: etapi bolshogo puti. 1911–2011. [The history of Nizhny Novgorod State University of Education: Stages of a long way 1911–2011]. Izdatelstvo NGPU. Shatskii, S. T. (1980). Shkola dlya detey ili deti dlya shkoli: izbrannie pedagogicheskie sochinenia [School for children or children for school: chosen educational essays] (Vol. 2).

Teacher education in the Soviet Union 1917–1985  75 Skatkin, L. N. (1961). O S. T. Shatskom [About Stanislav Shatsky]. Slastenin, V. A. (1976). Formirovanie lichnosti uchitelya v prothese professionalnoi podgotovki [Formation of the Soviet school teachers in the process of vocational training]. Prosveshcheniye. Sokolov, A. V. (2014). Gosudarstvo i pravoslavnaya tserkov v Rossii, fevral 1917- yanvar 1918 goda [The government and Orthodox Church in Russia, February 1917 – January 1918] [Doctoral dissertation, Herzen State Pedagogical University]. Dissertation Council of SPbU. https://disser.spbu.ru/disser2/disser/Sokolov_ diss.pdf Svyatkin, A. I. (1964). N. K. Krupskaya i P.P. Blonsky [Nadezhda Krupskaya and Pavel Blonsky]. Sovetskaya Pedagogika, 6, 113–122. The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Bolsheviks. (1936, July 24). O pedologicheskikh izvrashcheniyakh v sisteme Narkomprosov [About paedological distortion in the system of People’s Commissariat of Education]. http:// www.homlib.com/read/dokumenty-1933-1937/1936-07-04-o-pedologicheskih-izvrashcheniyah-v-sisteme-narkomprosov Valeeva, R. A. (2013). Requirements to the teacher’s personality as a tutor in the context of humanistic pedagogics of the XX century. Issues of Education, 2, 80–88. Vasilyev, K. I. (1966). Ocherki po istorii visshego pedagogicheskogo obrazovania v RSFSR (1918–1932) [Essays on the history of higher teacher education in the RSFSR (1918–1932)]. Centralnoye chernozemnoye knizhnoye izdatelstvo. Werth, N. (1994). Istoriya sovetskogo gosudarstva. 1900-1991 [History of the Soviet state. 1900–1991]. (A. V. Varlamov, K. V. Iordanskaya, Yu. D. Ryzhkov, Eds.; N. Werth, Tran., 2nd ed.). Moscow: Progress-Akademiya. (Original work published 1990). Yarmachenko, N. D. (1989). Pedagogicheskaya deyatelnost i tvorcheskoe nasledie A. S. Makarenko [Pedagogical activity and artistic legacy of Anton Makarenko]. Radyanska shkola. Yashchuk, I. (2013). Peculiarities of teacher education in the 1960s and 1980s. Science and Education, 3, 204–208. Zak, L. M. (1975). Nash sovremennik A. V. Lunacharskii. K stoletiyu so dnya rozhdenia [On the occasion of centenary of the birth of Anatoly Lunacharsky]. Narodnoe obrazovanie, 11, 80–84.

3 From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000 Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva

Introduction The period of 1985–2000 is a separate period in the history of Russian education. These 15 years were associated with a radical transformation of the socio-political and economic systems of the country. The reforms of the last communist leader of the country, Mikhail Gorbachev, carried out under the slogan ‘perestroika, glasnost, acceleration’ accelerated the collapse of not only the USSR, but the entire world socialist system. This chapter gives an account of the changes in the teacher education field that were happening amid different processes in the political, economic, and social life of the country. First, it marked the transformation of the immense, centralised USSR to the ‘New Russia’, which was significantly reduced in size. Second, it was the period of a complex transition from socialism to a form of capitalism, accompanied by intense political, economic, and social turmoil in the country. The educational system was also exposed to numerous experiments initiated by the government of Boris Yeltsin, which completely changed the image of education, educational establishments, and the status of teachers. Demagogy and populism in Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet Union was followed by a power vacuum and inconsistency during the government of Boris Yeltsin, which in the long run, severely undermined the balanced and effective teacher education system that had been established in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, we see that the 1990s witnessed the search for new models of teacher training, substantial experimental work, achievements, and failures. Changes were introduced to the ideology, organisational structure, content, and economy of the teacher education system. ‘De-ideologisation’, diversification, variability, commercialisation were entirely new phenomena.

The crisis of socialism and Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms By the mid-1980s, despite significant economic and social achievements, the Soviet Union moved into the ‘Era of Stagnation’ instigated by the pursuit of large-scale hard-to-implement projects, an arms-race, support of pro-communist regimes, and a technological gap (Sogrin, 1994). With Mikhail

From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000  77 Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, coming to power in 1985, a series of crises started rapidly occurring. As General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR, Gorbachev initiated the first liberal reforms which at the first stage envisaged a partial transformation of the socialist system. The reforms aimed at revising the foundations of the communist political system and the centrally planned economic system. Gorbachev’s Perestroika set the stage for the democratisation of the political system and development of a market economy. At that time, the role of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in public life started gradually declining, and the revival of real parliamentarism and glasnost began. Today, we can state that one part of Gorbachev’s reforms was undoubtedly a step in the right direction but the rest of the reforms contradicted prevailing conditions. Due to unpreparedness and inconsistency, they had rather unfortunate results. The economic crisis of the second half of the 1980s was accompanied by deterioration in the country’s political system. This resulted in the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and split into 15 independent states in the post-Soviet space. Globally, this provoked the crash of the entire world socialist system (Nikandrov, 2008). Gorbachev’s time became difficult and ambiguous for the Soviet education and pedagogical sciences, which were greatly influenced by the failure of the state ideology and shattering of Soviet people’s fundamental communist beliefs. People believed in the absence of private ownership of the means of production (including the non-state sector in education), social equality, norms of collective morality, and the like. As a result, the philosophical foundation of the previous education system began to collapse, which caused serious contradictions at various levels of educational practice.

The beginning of the de-ideologisation of education Therefore, the second half of the 1980s, and especially the 1990s, were times of dramatic changes in the country’s education system, which subsequently had a decisive influence on the modern system of teacher education. General reforms in the education system directly influenced the system of teacher training – the ideology and strict state regulation of the educational sphere gradually faded into the past. The following new principles were established: elimination of the state monopoly over education and its de-ideologisation; greater involvement of local authorities in education management; institutional autonomy in determining educational priorities; establishment of a system of cooperation between teachers, students, and parents. Democratic governance favoured the emergence of a powerful social movement towards reforming schools and the higher education system, which was no longer meeting the social and economic needs of a developing society. On the flip side, insufficient funding of state educational institutions led to an outflow of qualified teaching staff from secondary and higher education, a crisis in pedagogical sciences, and a deterioration in the quality of education. Further

78  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva developments showed that the movement towards the democratisation of education was mainly of a populist nature. The traditions of centralised school management and vast bureaucracy still prevailed. Reforms in secondary education entailed the need to modernise the domain of higher education including the teacher education sphere. The latter prioritised the ‘humanisation’ of the fundamental nature of educational programmes, rationalisation and decentralisation of university management, diversification of education, and the introduction of a multi-level structure, with further development of democratic and autonomous universities. At that time, however, the reforms were not followed through as it was impossible to quickly transform the socialist foundation of the past. Unfortunately, even minor changes in higher education introduced by the government only lightly touched upon higher pedagogical education which became, perhaps, one of the most conservative elements of the education system of the late USSR. Despite significant political, economic, social, and cultural changes, the national teacher education system stubbornly adhered to the Soviet traditions. The curriculum was still unified and highly influenced by the Soviet ideology; the education process was systematic and comprehensive; it was still obligatory for students to work in schools for three years after graduation. In the late 1980s, the usual teacher training curriculum in any subject area still included six or seven compulsory pro-communist courses (History of the Soviet Union Communist Party, Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Political Economy, Scientific Communism, Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism, Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Ethics, Soviet Law). In addition, there were several similar elective courses. This way, future music teachers at the Kazan State Pedagogical Institute could choose such courses as ‘Social and Economic Policy of the CPSU’, ‘CPSU’s Policy in the Field of Public Education’, ‘Criticism of Anti-Marxist Theories and Views on the Development of Socialist Society in Social Sciences’, ‘System of School Education on the Example of V.I. Lenin’s Life and Work’, ‘Development of Students’ Communist Worldview’, ‘Methodology of Atheistic Education’, ‘Methodology of Legal Education’, ‘Criticism of Modern Bourgeois Pedagogical Concepts’, and others. The list of these courses gives a comprehensive idea of the strong politicisation of teacher education. Overall, the ideological component accounted for 15 per cent of the total academic load. The proportion was higher in the case of school counsellors, future history and social science teachers who acted as linchpins in the communist education of young people. It is also essential to recall that the Marxist-Leninist methodology was integral to almost all other courses (pedagogy, psychology, didactics, etc.) which were saturated with statements by Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, leaders of the revolutionary movement. Furthermore, university professors were carefully selected, and some of them had to be members of the Communist Party. There were local communist organisations in almost every educational institution that regularly monitored whether ideological postulates were complied with. Support functions were fulfilled by

From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000  79 the committees of the youth communist organisations (such as the All-Union Leninist Communist Youth League) that attended to the students’ general mood. The decisions of the Party committees could become the reason for the dismissal of politically unreliable teachers and students.

Democratisation and changes in teacher training Only in the 1990s, traditions of moral education and ethical requirements imposed on teachers started fading away. As a result, this led to absolute chaos in the worldview and values of the Soviet youth. The phenomenon, where religious values had almost been lost as a result of the atheist propaganda, and communist values were rejected in the wake of new democracy, resulted in complete confusion. This radically changed the ways in which patriotism, citizenship, and interethnic tolerance were taught to pre-service teachers. The development of a new philosophical and pedagogical concept of the moral education of students was at the top of the agenda. As a result of changes in social reality, society’s attitude towards education as a public institution gradually transformed. In the late 1980s – early 1990s, many young people in Russia stopped striving for an education. One study in 1989 found that only 10 per cent of secondary school graduates showed an interest in learning (Gurkina, 2001). In response to the deteriorating social and economic status of teachers, young people lost interest in the teaching profession. This was in sharp contrast to the Soviet times when teachers were fairly prosperous and respected. By the end of the 1980s, the need to reform the teacher education system became increasingly evident. According to nationwide opinion surveys, in 1980, 83.6% of teachers were not satisfied with the quality of education they received. The majority of teachers who left the profession also pointed at the low quality of teacher education that did not provide them with proper training (Bolotov, 2001). One of the reasons for this was the lack of a clear conceptually and technologically developed understanding of the teaching profession in the changed circumstances. Researchers also underlined that pedagogical universities of that time did not prepare future teachers for a profession but for a specialism (Bolotov & Novichkov, 1992). Partially, these were the consequences of the transformation of teacher training curricula in the 1970s. The curricula were designed based on university programmes that included only basic courses in pedagogy and psychology. For example, in 1985, a five-year curriculum for future teachers of mathematics and physics with 4942 hours of academic study was structured as follows: 14 % – ideological courses; 8 % – foreign language and physical education; 8 % – courses in pedagogy and psychology; 12 % – pedagogical and educational practice; 58 % – courses in mathematics, physics, and didactics.

80  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva In addition, in most pedagogical universities, one day a week during the first two courses, students (most of whom were women) studied the basics of medical knowledge and received a certificate of basic medical education. To some extent, the course on the basics of medical knowledge was an echo of the Cold War and prepared future teachers for extreme situations. However, a positive side effect was the additional competence of Soviet teachers to provide first aid if and when needed. New approaches to teacher education started being developed at both practical and theoretical levels. Interestingly, changes were initiated not only by state bodies but also by educational institutions and even by teachers themselves. Different reform movements aimed at changes in the structure, content, and didactics in education appeared at that time. New curricula for teacher training universities in 1989 and 1993 were introduced through the so-called ‘top-down’ movement. According to the new curricula, universities could independently plan course structures by year of study and decide whether the length to qualify as a teacher in one subject would be four or five years. At the same time, to qualify as a teacher in two subjects, a student studied for five years. According to the State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education (1995), the five-year curriculum included 8432 academic study hours, which was accounted for by approximately 50% classroom work and 50% independent study. 1800 academic hours were allocated for courses in general culture; 484 hours for courses in medicine and biology; 6100 hours for subject-related courses and school internship; 50 hours for elective courses. The newly established ‘Democratic Freedom’ contributed to a noticeable revival of the teaching and scientific intelligentsia (professional class), which had previously been under the strict control of party bodies (Isaev, 1993; Zagvyazinskiy, 1987; Ventsel, 1999). Various discussions took place, many restrictions were removed, which gave rise to mass innovative creativity in teacher training universities ‘from below.’ It relied on a widely deployed and hugely popular movement of ‘innovative teachers.’ The pedagogical ideas of such scientists and practitioners as V.F. Shatalov, E.I. Ilyin, S.I. Lysenkova, Sh. Amonashvili, M. Shchetinin, to name just a few, received mass recognition (Davydov, 1995, 1986; Galperin, 1985; Kalmykova & Shatalov, 2010; Kalmykova, 2011). An iconic phenomenon for Soviet teachers was their joint work – the Manifesto ‘Pedagogy of Cooperation’, which reflected the basic principle of the new school: cooperation between a child and an adult as the basis for school progress and success (Lysenkova et al., 1986). Under its influence, teachers began to create their own educational projects, schools, innovation networks, and the like. Concurrently, these ideas began to penetrate teacher training institutions. The figures of national education reform showed a clear understanding of the teacher’s crucial role in the renewal of the Russian school at almost all levels: state, local, public, professional. So it was that the system of teacher

From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000  81 education existent in the Soviet Union received fierce criticism from the powerful socio-pedagogical movement that unfolded in the USSR in 1986–1991. In 1988, by order of the Minister (Chairman of the USSR State Committee for Public Education) G.A. Yagodin, the Temporary Research Community (VNIK) ‘School’ was created, headed by the famous educator and public figure E.D. Dneprov. He united the most progressive teachers and psychologists of the country, whose purpose was to develop a new strategy for the development of education in the country. It was based on the ideas of the personality development of a schoolchild, variability, and free choice at all levels of the educational system, turning education into an effective factor in the development of society. The documents developed by the Community were approved in December 1988 by the All-Union Congress of Educational Workers. Thus, the new education strategy enshrined the basic democratic principles of the Gorbachev’s Perestroika. These were as follows: • democratisation; • pluralism of education, its multilateralism, variable and non-conventional nature; • the national spirit and character of education; • the openness of education; • regionalisation of education; • humanisation of education; • differentiation of education; • the developmental, operational nature of education; • continuity of education. For a year and a half, the implementation of the new reform was delayed and began only with the appointment of E.D. Dneprov in 1990 as the Minister of Education of the RSFSR (and then the Russian Federation). According to Dneprov, the task of reforming education was to turn external influence into ‘an active effective mechanism for internal reform of Russian education’ (Dneprov, 2006). This mechanism involved the arrangement of focused international cooperation in the field of education in key areas of its reform changes (Dneprov, 2006).

Teacher education in the new Russia and the initiatives of the government of Boris Yeltsin Radical changes in the goals, structure, content, and technology of pedagogical education were further developed after the All-Union Congress of Public Education Workers. Especially active changes in this area unfolded from 1990 onwards against the background of further depoliticisation of education, decentralisation and regionalisation of its management, democratisation of the school life. Fundamentally important for education, including

82  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva teacher training, was the refusal to politicise education. It became subject to legislative regulation in accordance with the principles of the rule of law. Later, this was enshrined in the Law of the Russian Federation ‘On Education’ adopted in 1992 (Government of the Russian Federation, 1992) and then, as amended by the Federal Law of 13 January 1996. Large-scale political and socio-economic changes in the country contributed to the development and implementation of new approaches to the training of teachers. The results of the first initiatives were mainly summed up in the ‘Concept of Teacher Training Education’, prepared in 1990–1991 and first presented after the collapse of the USSR in January 1992 at a meeting of rectors of teacher training universities with the heads of public education bodies (Bolotov & Kostikova, 1998). Later, local strategies for the development of teacher training universities were developed on its basis. They also addressed the political changes taking place in the country which were aimed at solving the problem of ‘educating a free person, a cultured person and actor, consciously and responsibly making decisions based on certain cultural and historical prerequisites’ (Khutorsky, 2003; Kuzmina & Rean, 1993). Thus, after the disintegration of the USSR, the next stage of liberal reforms began in Russia, becoming even more radical. Formed by the first President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin (1991–1999), the new government abandoned the communist past altogether and, when carrying out reforms, these were based in the politics of a multi-party system, while in economics the reforms were based on monetarism and ‘shock therapy’. This was expressed in the accelerated privatisation of state property, and in the rejection of state regulation of prices and the artificial exchange rate of the ruble, the planned management of the economy, and other related measures. However, economic problems caused a systemic crisis in society, which entailed numerous difficulties in the educational system of the country. There was a slow but steady drift of the essence of education as a free social institution towards an educational service provided by various educational institutions within the framework of a market economy. As a result, this led to the formation of a mixed system combining the features of public and private education. Until the 1990s, in the USSR, amidst absolutely free education, there was a fairly effective system of differentiating graduates of comprehensive schools by the level of the acquired knowledge. Only about half of them could enter higher education institutions through examination and competition. Fewer trained graduates of comprehensive schools were allowed to obtain a vocational secondary education, and students with low educational results were taught vocational professions. This ensured the influx of students with a sufficiently high level of training into higher education, including teacher training institutions, which made it possible to further establish an effective learning process. The emergence of private educational institutions and the possibility of paid tuition in public higher educational institutions in the 1990s, on the one hand, increased the accessibility of higher education, but on the other hand, opened up the educational opportunity for graduates of

From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000  83 secondary schools with a low level of knowledge. This led to a decline in the quality of teacher training in higher education institutions. The system of higher teacher training education was under the control of the Federal Ministry. Secondary teacher training education was either under the jurisdiction of the Federal or regional educational authorities. Federal agencies were involved in the shaping of policy for education development, national standards of education, and the funding of educational institutions. Attempts to reform teacher training education at the federal level continued throughout the 1990s. The generally difficult economic situation of Russia had a negative effect on the pace of reform of vocational education in the mid-1990s. The education sector tended to be on the fringes of state policy, with a relatively low priority. Teachers and educators across the country suffered from non-payment of wages; schools suffered from a lack of qualified personnel and required technological development. The Education Act of 1992 provided for annual education costs of at least 10 per cent of national income. In actual fact, the level of funding only amounted to 4.6% in 1992, 5.8% in 1993, and about 3% in 1994. Teacher training educational institutions became the weakest link in higher education in Russia. In the context of financial instability, there was an inevitable decline in funding for this area. As a result, less than 30% of teacher training institutions had facilities and resources close to those which were aspired to. Teacher training staff, as generally in the rest of the universities, experienced many difficulties, especially associated with a lower level of pay and delayed payments. From late 1993, funding for the economic needs of universities was almost withdrawn. No funds were allocated for the purchase of educational literature or technical means of training. In this regard, one cannot fail to recall the very first Decree of the President of the RSFSR B.N. Yeltsin of 11 July 1991 No. 1 ‘On priority measures for the development of education in the RSFSR’. Many thought that it provided for measures capable of bringing education, including teacher training, out of the stagnation which it ended up with by the end of the 1980s (Government of the Russian Federation, 1991). In particular, it was intended to increase the salaries of the employees of the education system from 1 January 1992, so as to bring the average salaries and salaries of university professors to the level of twice the average wage in the industrial sector of the RSFSR, as well as to raise the salaries of teachers and other faculty workers to a level not lower than the average wage in industry. But these plans remained unfulfiled. This led to a mass exodus of existing teachers from schools and a dramatic decrease in the popularity of the profession among young people. As a result, the number of people wishing to be trained as teachers noticeably fell, and for the first time after the end of the Soviet era, some of teacher training institutions even began to experience problems with filling state-financed places. In the context of huge economic and social problems, teacher training organisations – colleges, institutes and universities – tried to independently adapt to the new socio-economic conditions. The legal basis for their activities

84  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva as defined in the Law of the Russian Federation ‘On Education’ (1992), and then in the Law of the Russian Federation ‘On Higher and Postgraduate Vocational Education’ (1996), determined the state policy in the education sector (Government of the Russian Federation, 1996). Organisation-wise, the Soviet traditions continued in the field of teacher training and vocational educational institutions were established at the first level – teacher training schools – which were gradually renamed colleges. These educational institutions trained specialists to work with children of preschool and primary school age, as well as handicraft teachers for boys and girls, including entry levels of vocational professions. The training time was maintained as follows: four years of study after finishing nine grades and two years of study after finishing eleven grades of a comprehensive school. At the end of secondary vocational education, graduates could begin their career or continue their studies at higher educational institutions. The second level of the teacher training system was higher vocational education, attained based on secondary (complete) general or secondary vocational education at a higher educational institution in the main vocational education programs. Regulatory requirements, both for the higher education system and the level of graduate training, were defined in a number of legislative documents, for example, in the Federal Law of the Russian Federation ‘On Higher Postgraduate Vocational Education’.

First steps in introducing the multi-level system of higher education One of the most important innovations of this period was the transition from a mono-level to a multi-level system of higher education. By order of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation No. 255 of 15 June 1992, several teacher training universities were identified. They participated in the experiment on the transition to multilevel training of specialists for secondary schools. The legal basis for the experiment was the provisions of the Law ‘On Education’, the Decree of the Higher School Committee of the Ministry of Science, Higher School and Technical Policy of the Russian Federation dated 13 March 1993, No. 13 ‘On the Introduction of a Multilevel Structure of Higher Education in the Russian Federation’ and were approved by the Decree called ‘Temporary Regulation on the multilevel structure of higher education in the Russian Federation’ (Ministry of Science, Higher Education and Technical Policy of the Russian Federation, 1993). One of the tasks of the experiment was the ultimate separation of the former ideologically charged approach to teacher training towards a person-oriented, humanistic training. The new system was focused on rapid changes in society and human life, and the needs of the labour market. This influenced the agenda and content of teacher education. It became clear that further changes were required in this area. The transition to a multi-level system of higher education was an attempt to finally depart from the general principle of training in particular

From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000  85 professions established in the country, mainly within the framework of fiveyear programme of study. Even though officially Russia joined the Bologna process in 2003, this process had already begun in the early 1990s. After the adoption of the Federal Law ‘On Education’ in 1992, the possibility of implementing multi-level training was regulated in the national education system. Initially, during the transition period, it was assumed that the multi-level system ‘bachelor-master’ and the system of specialist training could and should develop in parallel, as they were built on completely different ideologies of higher education. Thus, the multi-level system of training implied a trajectory of education development from the general to the particular, when students received a broad education in any field, and then gradually had a narrower focus on training through specific courses and specialisation. On the contrary, training in the specialism immediately assumed an orientation towards a narrow specific field of professional activity. For example, in teacher education, it focused on the training of teachers in mathematics, physics, or history. In contrast to other counties, in Russia, the first stage of transition to the multi-level system was characterised by its specificity and inconsistency. The models of the State Educational Standards of Higher Professional Education (HPE) of 1992–1993 and of 2000 did not imply clear differences between the levels of education, nor within the programme tracks (bachelor’s, master’s) and specialisms (specialist’s degree) (Baichorov, 1997). The State educational standards did not define the differences between bachelor’s, master’s, and specialists in the context of knowledge, abilities, and skills obtained in the course of training. Due to this, in reality, when developing the curricula, higher education institutions were forced to simply combine two fundamentally different ideologies of these three approaches according to the scheme: 4+1+2. It was within the framework of these general approaches that the multi-level system of education in pedagogical universities throughout the country began to form. In the context of teacher education, the system’s viability was due to the following factors: • the need for teachers of different levels of education; • students’ requests aimed at choosing the duration, level, and fields of study; • the need for teachers for gymnasiums, lyceums, and other innovative educational institutions; • integration of Russian school education into the international educational space. The elaboration of the transition to the multi-level education was a powerful innovative process which took place in pedagogical universities and institutes in 1992–1996. Its concept was developed by a team of authors uniting famous researchers and practitioners: M. N. Kostikova, V.S. Yampolsky, P.K. Odintsov, A.P. Tryapitsina, T.V. Talnikova, A.I. Panarina, N.V. Chekaleva,

86  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva and others. Over 20 pedagogical universities were involved in this large-scale innovation process. Ten design seminars were held with the participation of the authors of the concept. As a result, in the second half of the 1990s, three educational models of teacher education operated in parallel in Russia: 1. The mono-level (traditional) approach focused on the training of specialists for one specific type of professional activity. The mono-level system is a traditional system of higher education which prepared domain specialists. It was rigid. In the course of training, it did not provide an opportunity to choose the training options. The introduction of State Standards of Mono-Level Education in 1997 suggested a flexible approach. However, on the whole, the system limited the possibilities of personal choice. 2. The multi-staged model allowed graduates of teacher training colleges, that trained teachers only in one subject, to continue their studies at university, as an experiment starting from the 2nd or 3rd year, according to a specially developed shortened programme (known as ‘combined’ curricula). The multi-staged system provided an opportunity to receive higher education based on post-secondary education. The ‘combined’ curricula were designed to be more flexible. However, this caused an array of problems related to the enrollment of 3rd-year students. Funding sources was also among the key issues. Furthermore, the quality of education received at the first stage in teacher training colleges caused concerns. 3. The multi-level (innovative) system that conforms to the conditions of life-long education. The system began to be implemented in pedagogical universities after the adoption of the Russian Federation Law ‘On Education’ in 1992 and the development of the first state educational standards, which highlighted the requirements for training specialists in pedagogy. These requirements were divided into four main blocks of teacher training curricula: general cultural, psycho-pedagogical, biomedical, and domain-specific. Although the majority of students studied for five years as required by speciality programmes, in 1996 the bachelor’s degree was introduced in several Russian universities. Bachelor’s programmes assumed a four-year period of study (Government of the Russian Federation, 1996). In 1996, bachelor’s and master’s degrees were already established as levels of training. Though at that time they were considered as two stages of a single process of obtaining higher education, being an alternative to the traditional one. It meant acquiring an education within a broad area for a variety of professional activities. For instance, such programmes were developed in six areas of teacher education. The range of specialisms was expanded from 23 to 42, which was due to the needs of new teachers for the socio-cultural sphere in such areas as economics, psychology, philosophy, political science, legal studies, social

From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000  87 pedagogy, social psychology, educational psychology for students with special needs, sociology, and healthcare science. The formation of a multi-level system encountered resistance from higher education institutions and employers. Many of them took a sceptical approach to teacher training at the master’s level. First, despite the opportunity of taking bachelor’s and master’s courses, this process really started only after the next President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, endorsed the ‘Law on the introduction of a two-level system of higher education’ on 24 October 2007. According to the Law, the two-level system of higher education was supposed to be realised from 1 September 2009. However, the mass transition of Russian universities to the two-level system of higher education ‘bachelor’s – master’s’ actually occurred only in 2011. Second, even now, there is no real differentiation in the responsibilities, rights, and salaries of teachers with bachelor’s or master’s degree certificates. It should be recognised that this trend did not gain any real impetus in the field of teacher education. This was due to the fact that the switch to the multi-level higher education required the creation of a new concept of teacher education. In fact, it was a radical breakdown of a single-level system of five-year education that had been developing over the past decades. Therefore, in reality, for a long time, there was a lack of understanding not only of the content and specific features of the first and second stages of higher education but also between vocational education in teacher’s training colleges and bachelor’s courses in pedagogical institutes and universities. As a result, the transition to the four-year bachelor’s degree from five-year specialist programmes was frequently accompanied by the removal of psychology disciplines from the curriculum (Bordovskiy, 1994). Another direction in the reorganisation of teacher education was an attempt to abandon its uniform structure, earlier represented in higher teacher education only by educational institutions of the same type, i.e. pedagogical institutes, working according to a common standard curriculum. Unfortunately, it did not take into account national and regional peculiarities, the significance of variations between the all-Russian and regional labour markets, or the state of material and personnel support of educational institutions. The increasing diversity of types of educational institutions (gymnasiums, lyceums, special subject schools, etc.) required the training of highly adaptive teachers who are able to work in various conditions. Alongside this, the constant change in the content of education at all levels created a task of activating research activities and establishing large research centres to consider relevant issues of teacher training. This stimulated the intervention of universities in teacher education. It should be noted that university training of teachers had been carried out on a relatively small scale during the Soviet period. In many universities in the country, five-year programmes for the training of physicists, chemists, philologists, and other specialists included two to three short courses in pedagogy, psychology, and sometimes teaching methods of the subject. This allowed the educational institutions to confer on students an additional qualification

88  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva of ‘Teacher’. Some of those graduates actually worked in school as subject teachers. Such specialists made up approximately 5–10 per cent of the total number of Russian teachers. As a rule, they worked in schools with intensified instruction in mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology. Students of those schools had higher educational outcomes. In the 1990s in Russia, the university sector in teacher education began to develop in a different way, different from practice elsewhere. Since 1991, a number of the country’s largest pedagogical institutes, first in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, and then in several regional centres, have received the status of ‘specialised universities’. First and foremost, their creation implied the establishment of leading educational, scientific, and methodological centres in the field of teacher training. The draft curricula, textbooks, learning technologies, as well as research, difficult-to-implement in numerous small educational institutions, were designed to determine a basic trajectory for the development of teacher education in Russia. In the context of continuing unification of this sphere, such functions were undertaken by the largest specialised universities, namely Moscow Pedagogical State University (MPSU) and the Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia (HSPUR). Federal educational and methodological associations, inter-university centres, laboratories, research institutes in the field of pedagogy, psychology, and others successfully operated in this context, extending their influence on the entire system of teacher education in the country. However, later, several regional institutes were transformed into pedagogical universities. This to some extent weakened the initial mission of this type of educational institutions, considered as drivers of modernising the system of teacher training in Russia. By the mid-90s, the system of higher teacher education in Russia included 97 state universities, of which 40 were pedagogical universities. Over 430,000 students, including more than 280,000 full-time students, studied in state universities. Further liberalisation of teacher training requirements has led to the entry of various types of higher education institutions into the educational market. In the late 1990s, more than 170 higher education institutions, including 90 pedagogical universities and institutes, focused on teacher training. During the 1990s, the number of students enrolled in teacher training programmes more than doubled. Thereafter, there was a downward trend in the number of specialised pedagogical educational institutions. Simultaneously with this process, the training of teachers in traditional and industry-specific universities began to increase, and this became a prevailing trend in the first two decades of the 21st century. The Russian Ministry of Education, along with a number of state and public organisations, coordinated the educational, research, and methodological activities of higher education institutions (Bolotov, 2001).

Attempts to reform the content of teacher education Considering various trends in reforming the content of teacher education, the transition from functional (subject-oriented) education to the training

From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000  89 of teachers with an equally strong psychological and pedagogical training should be marked as a strategic trend. As mentioned above, the analysis of curricula of that period showed that a subject-oriented (functional) approach to the structure, technology, and content of teacher training dominated until the 1990s. In pedagogical institutes, standard curricula usually had the form of modified university programmes, which included methodological, psychological, and pedagogical disciplines. Meanwhile, the changed conditions required a more comprehensive system for the training of well-rounded teachers. This was spurred by the development of a new basic standard of general secondary education, the expansion of academic freedom of teachers and teaching staff, and the differentiation of the network of educational institutions. Thus, the dependence of teacher education on political, economic, social, and ethnic processes in Russia was apparent. The combination of these factors has determined the main direction of travel of reforming the system of teacher training in the country (Piskunov, 2001). In this regard, attempts at differentiated teacher training have become quite well developed due to the increased diversity of the teaching labour market. Meantime, new types of educational systems and environments emerged on a massive scale including: gymnasiums, lyceums, colleges, children’s academies, cultural and educational centres, denominational schools, Waldorf schools, and Montessori schools. Instead of an earlier unified and uniform education system, different types and practices actively started to appear: education of children with special needs, including mental disorders and physical disabilities, further education (for example, children and adults production units, governess services, tutoring, education for gifted children and vulnerable groups). New trends in general and further education were the key challenges for teacher education. The system of continuing education expanded. Therefore, graduates from different universities could obtain a teaching qualification, and in-service teachers could gain further qualifications. This had an impact on the significant modernisation of teacher training curricula. The main discussion was about the amount of subject-focused disciplines, and psychological and pedagogical disciplines in teacher training curriculum. Previously, psychological and pedagogical disciplines accounted for less than 10 per cent of the whole curriculum, but in 1993 this percentage increased to more than 20%. However, the new national standards were introduced in 1997 and the number of psychological and pedagogical disciplines was considerably reduced once again. The 1990s was the period of serious challenges around the didactics element of teacher training (Brock, 1996; Scherbakov, 2004). For the first time, Russian scholars started to talk extensively about the inevitability of the changing role of teachers and the loss of teacher monopoly as a source of new information and subject knowledge. Consequently, there was a need for the new generation of teachers. The new aim of teachers was not only to impart knowledge to students but also to teach how to gain that knowledge and develop children’s learning activity. Thus, the new approach to

90  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva teacher education suggested training of a ‘teacher-expert’. In contrast to a specialist in a specific field, the new teacher was expected to be a professionally well-educated person, who is skilful with educational and developmental processes, professional activity, and the ways of self-improvement. The role of an educator was transformed from a transmitter of knowledge to a facilitator of the learning process, working with creative tasks, different meaningful activities, and children’s out-of-school life (Tryapitsyna, 1995). Certain flexibility over the development of curricula provided the possibility of choosing some educational courses. ‘The State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education’ of 2000 allowed higher education organisations to introduce some disciplines in the sections ‘National and regional aspect’, ‘Elective courses’, and ‘Optional courses’. Overall, these sections occupied 20% of the curriculum and provided ample opportunities for flexibility. Especially this was important for the multinational regions of the Russian Federation. They could introduce the language and history classes about different nations in the country in the section ‘National and regional aspect’, according to the regional law of two state languages. The analysis of State Educational Standards of Higher Professional Education declared in 1995 and 2000 shows the significant rise in opportunities for curriculum flexibility in higher education. Nearly all pedagogical universities and institutes were searching for the new ways of development and formulation of their own perspectives. New teacher education curricula and techniques were created and piloted, but they were usually within certain parameters specified by a curriculum designer. For example, the creators of curricula allocated the number of hours for universal cultural training, subject training, psychological and pedagogical training, and teaching placement depending on their particular preferences. However, these preferences often were not based on thoughtful analysis of the requirements for graduates’ activity and did not include consideration of teaching methods (Baichorov, 1997). Furthermore, there were some strategic concerns around the modern achievements of pedagogy, expectations of teachers, and social, economic, political, and cultural changes in Russia. All of them had to be resolved. The development of the new approaches to teacher training was in line with the transformation of higher education more widely in Russia. The transformation was due to the trends, such as philosophical, methodological, and theoretical knowledge of teacher training content, providing continuity of study programmes, the orientation of education and upbringing on universal human values, self and professional development of student teachers (Nikandrov, 2008; Slastenin, 2000). The organisational changes were followed by attempts to change teacher training content. The development of the new generation of teachers was based on the changes in the teacher education curriculum, involving subject knowledge, humanisation and diversification, and on the development and implementation of innovative teaching methods (Bermus, 2015). For instance, in view of the opening of master’s programmes, a more focused

From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000  91 teacher training was aimed to prepare a higher education teacher, a teacher-researcher, or other specific roles. The possibility of combining some specialisations in teacher education was an innovation for small rural schools. As an experiment, teachers were trained in four subject areas, for example, the Russian language, Russian literature, a foreign language, and history. However, this experiment was unsuccessful. Some studies showed the impossibility of high-quality teacher training in several subject areas. Such research indicates that a teacher in Russia can professionally teach only two related school subjects. The reality, unfortunately, was that a teacher in rural schools had to teach four unrelated subjects simultaneously. This, obviously, was at the expense of the quality of education. The local concept of multilevel teacher education became prevalent in the 1990s along with the federal approaches to the organisation and monitoring of teacher training. The approaches were built upon historical traditions of teacher education in the regions, the specificity of the teaching job market, and the capacity of human resources in the regional educational establishments. As a rule, such teacher training systems included one local pedagogical university, several pedagogical colleges, and an institute of continuing teacher education and professional development. In addition, in some regions, there were pedagogical lyceums and classrooms. The model of local multilevel teacher education had several practical advantages and allowed for the creation of systematic activities in the following aspects: • Orientation of young people to the teaching profession and pre-professional education. It created the conditions for a conscious choice to become a teacher on the basis of school graduates’ motivation and skills. • Teacher training through crosscutting curricula and coordinated programmes in order to avoid duplicated content and to reduce the length of teacher training without loss of quality. One important advantage was to provide continuation and consistency of aims, content, and methods of teacher education at different levels of professional education. Direct contacts and coordinated actions among education organisations facilitated the removal of any bureaucratic hurdles to ensure effective teacher training. • Close collaboration between pedagogical universities and institutions for teachers’ professional development. The former were under the control of federal ministries and the latter were under the control of regional administration. This created a serious collaboration issue. Pedagogical universities usually conducted initial teacher training and were not allowed to assist in the professional retraining of teachers. Institutes of Teachers’ Development were in charge of the professional retraining, but later they were renamed as Institutes for Education Development. • Generally, although there were sustained attempts to transform the system of teacher education in Russia in the 1990s, the system continued

92  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva to be highly unified and regimented. A new nationwide teacher quality management system was developed at that time and this system was the main method to preserve the system of teacher education. Traditional ways of government control, which were practised during the Soviet time, did not comply with changed educational practice and were behind the reforms in the field of higher education (Huisman et al., 2018). The loosening of state control in the period of crisis of the Russian society, development of the private sector in education, and economic difficulties determined the following aspects: the need to keep a common education space, the right to education in the amount and within the timeframe as required by the Law, quality assurance in educational organisations independently of the organisation’s type and legal status. In view of this, new licensing, inspection, and accreditation procedures were established to evaluate education organisations. The procedures of regulation and performance appraisal of education organisations, according to the Law, included successive steps. Each of those steps was conducted on the grounds of an application form from an educational institution or its founder. For the first time, accreditation of educational institutions was introduced to ensure the quality evaluation. Accreditation occurred once in five years and it was one of the requirements in order to obtain government approval. Furthermore, government accreditation became the main procedure to establish (confirm) the status (type) of public education organisation. Also, it indicated that a government body trusted educational institutions to award graduation certificates complying with State Educational Standards where the requirements relating to content and proficiency were written. Government accreditation involved accreditation of each educational programme as well as accreditation of the whole education organisation taking into consideration their accredited programmes. The implementation of this quite complex quality evaluation system was assigned to several government bodies: the Department for Licensing, Accreditation and Nostrification of the Ministry of Education in the Russian Federation, the Accreditation Panel of the Ministry of Education in the Russian Federation, the State Inspectorate for Attestation of Higher Education Organisations (later-State Attestation Service). Subsidiary institutions played an aiding role in this quite elaborate and bureaucratic process: • Academic Methodological Associations. They were private associations majoring in different specialities; • Associations of Pedagogical Institutes of Higher Education. They were created in accord with speciality-oriented approach; • Agencies of Quality Assurance in Education and Accreditation Support of Educational Institutes. Accreditation was a difficult multiple stage process, comprising several successive procedures. The realisation of that process was stretched over an

From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000  93 extended time frame, and educational institutes saw it as a major challenge. Later on much effort was put in to simplifying these processes.

Conclusion A persistent policy of gradual decline in the influence of the communist ideology in the second half of the 1980s and the rise of democratic trends led in the 1990s to chaos in the country as it dramatically changed Russian realities. At that time, the status of the teaching profession started to gradually decline as did the stability of pedagogical education. To this day, we have not been successful in overcoming the consequences of that decline to the full extent (Kalimullin et al., 2020). The main reasons for this were the absolute lack of continuity in the educational policy of the governments of Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, and the catastrophic state of the economy. Political, cultural, social, and economic changes in the country’s life and the appearance of new values in education led to the new aims and objectives of teacher education. This was followed by a series of reforms in teacher training. Subject-focused and methodical training was changed to the development of personality and in-depth knowledge about culture and methodology of pedagogical work (Talanchuk, 1996). The reform efforts both at the federal and local levels led to significant changes in objective, content-related, organisational, and technological characteristics of teacher education. Under the conditions of the development of a multi-party system in Russia in 1990s, for the first time in many years, some contradictory views on education reforms arose between political parties. However, it was more a formality since absolute single-party dominance continued to restrict the influence of other political forces over education. Overall, some significant trends of that period included the shift from subject-centred teacher training, the end of communist ideology, reorganisation, differentiated instruction, and multilevel teacher education. The decisive shift away from the ideologically oriented model of teacher education manifested itself in changes in the number of hours per discipline. It was applicable to universal cultural, subject-centred, psychological and pedagogical disciplines, and teaching internships. The increased role of pedagogical and psychological training aimed to help future teachers to become aware of professional space, develop an axiological attitude towards the profession, learn essential elements of the profession, and gain professional development experience (project development, evaluation of results) in their respective professional fields. Generally, however, the teacher education reforms failed to achieve their ultimate goals in the second half of the 1980s–1990s due to the lack of economic resources and political instability. Despite the difficulties in the transition period in Russia, the main traditions of teacher education and the system of training, retraining, and professional development of teachers were preserved. To a large extent, that gave an impetus to new reforms at the beginning of the 21st century.

94  Aydar Kalimullin and Roza Valeeva

References Baichorov, K. U. (1997). Obrazovatelnyi standart kak osnova razrabotki novykh tekhnologiy podgotovki spetsialista [Educational standard as the basis for the development of new technologies for training a specialist] [Doctoral dissertation, SaintPetersburg State University]. DisserCat. https://www.dissercat.com/content/ obrazovatelnye-standarty-kak-osnova-razrabotki-novykh-tekhnologii-podgotovki-spetsialista Bermus, A. G. (2015). Gumanitarnyye smysly obrazovaniya: iz 20 – v 21 vek [Humanitarian meanings of education: from 20th to 21st century]. Izdatelstvo YuFU. Bolotov, V. A. (2001). Teoriya i praktika reformirovaniya pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya v Rossii v usloviyakh sotsial'nykh peremen [Theory and practice of reforming teacher education in Russia in the context of social changes] [Doctoral dissertation, Saint-Petersburg State University]. DisserCat. https://www.dissercat.com/content/teoriya-i-praktika-reformirovaniya-pedagogicheskogo-obrazovaniya-v-rossii-v-usloviyakh-sotsi Bolotov, V. A., & Kostikova, M. N. (1998). Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye – stranitsy reformirovaniya [Teacher Education – Reform Pages]. Peremena. Bolotov, V. A., & Novichkov, V. B. (1992). Reforma pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya [Reform of teacher education]. Pedagogika, 7–8, 49–54. Bordovskiy, B. A. (1994). Podgotovka spetsialista v oblasti obrazovaniya (struktura i soderzhaniye) [Training of a specialist in the field of education (structure and content)]. SPb. Brock, C. (Ed.). (1996). Global perspectives on teacher education. Didcot: Triangle. Davydov, V. V. (1995). O ponyatii razvivayushchego obucheniya [About the concept of developing learning]. Peleng. Davydov, V. V. (1986). Problemy razvivayushchego obucheniya: opyt teoreticheskogo i eksperimental'nogo psikhologicheskogo issledovaniya [Developmental learning problems: the experience of theoretical and experimental psychological research]. Pedagogika. Dneprov, E. D. (2006). Noveyshaya politicheskaya istoriya rossiyskogo obrazovaniya [The latest political history of Russian education]. Marios. Galperin, L. F. (1985). Metody obucheniya i umstvennogo razvitiya rebenka [Methods of teaching and mental development of the child]. Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo universiteta. Government of the Russian Federation. (1991, July 11). Decree of the President of the RSFSR B. N. Yeltsin ‘On priority measures for the development of education in the RSFSR’ (in Russian). http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online. cgi?req=doc&base=EXP&n=221251#034068435595797486 Government of the Russian Federation. (1992, July 10). A law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’ (in Russian). http://www.consultant.ru/document/ cons_doc_LAW_1888/ Government of the Russian Federation. (1996, August 22). A law ‘On Higher and Postgraduate Professional Education’ (in Russian). http://www.consultant.ru/ document/cons_doc_LAW_11446/ Gurkina, N. K. (2001). Istoriya obrazovaniya v Rossii (X-XX veka) [History of education in Russia (10th-20th centuries)]. SPbGUAP. Huisman, J., Smolentseva, A., & Froumin, I. (2018). 25 Years of Transformations of Higher Education Systems in Post-Soviet Countries: Reform and Continuity. Singapore: Springer Nature.

From Soviet Union to Russian Federation 1985–2000  95 Isaev, I. F. (1993). Theoretical Foundations of the Formation of the Professional Pedagogical Culture of the Teacher of Higher Education [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Moscow. Kalimullin, A. M., Zhigalova, M. P., Ibrasheva, A. K., Kobylyanskaya, L. I., Lodatko, E. A., & Nurlanov, E. (2020). Postsovetskaya identichnost v pedagogicheskom obrazovanii: proshloye, nastoyashcheye, budushcheye [Post-Soviet Identity and Teacher Education: Past, Present, Future]. Education and Self-Development, 15(3), 145–163. Kalmykova, Z. I., & Shatalov, V. F. (2010). Predisloviye. Pedagogicheskaya proza [Foreword. Pedagogical prose]. Moscow. Kalmykova, Z. I. (2011). Pedagogika gumanizma [Pedagogy of Humanism]. Znaniye. Khutorsky, A. V. (2003). Key competences as a component of personality-oriented paradigm of education. Education, 2, 58–64. Kuzmina, N. V., & Rean A. A. (1993). Professionalism of pedagogical activity. Education. Lysenkova, S. N., Shatalov, V. F., Volkov, I. P., Karakovskiy, V. A., Schetinin, M. P., Ilin, E. N., & Amonashvili, S. A. (1986). Manifest “Pedagogika sotrudnichestva” [Manifesto “Pedagogy of Cooperation”]. http://freeschool.education/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/1986-g.-Manifest-Pedagogika-sotrudnichestva.pdf Ministry of Science, Higher Education and Technical Policy of the Russian Federation. (1993, March 13). Resolution of the Committee for Higher Education No. 13 ‘On the introduction of a multi-level structure of higher education in the Russian Federation’. http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online. cgi?base=EXP&dst=100001&n=401487&req=doc#03657258606094549 Nikandrov, N. D. (2008). Dukhovnyye tsennosti i vospitaniye v sovremennoy Rossii [Spiritual values and education in modern Russia]. Pedagogika, 3, 41–47. Piskunov, A. I. (2001). Pedagogical education: concept, contents, structure. Pedagogics, 3, 41–47. Scherbakov, Y. I. (2004). Teoriya i praktika razvitiya vysshey pedagogicheskoy shkoly v usloviyakh sovremennoy Rossii [Theory and practice of the development of a higher pedagogical school in the conditions of modern Russia] [Doctoral dissertation, Institute of General Education]. DisserCat. https://www.dissercat.com/content/ teoriya-i-praktika-razvitiya-vysshei-pedagogicheskoi-shkoly-v-usloviyakh-sovremennoi-rossii Slastenin, V. A. (2000). Pedagogical process as a system. Magistr-Press. Sogrin, V. V. (1994). Politicheskaya istoriya sovremennoy Rossii. 1985–1994: ot Gorbacheva do Yeltsina [Political history of modern Russia. 1985–1994: From Gorbachev to Yeltsin]. Progress-Akademiya. Talanchuk, H. M. (1996). New content of teachers’ general pedagogical preparation: System-synergetic theory. Magarif. Tryapitsyna, A. P. (1995). Pedagogicheskiye osnovy proyektirovaniya obrazovatelnykh sistem novogo vida [Pedagogical foundations of designing educational systems of a new type]. SPb. Ventsel, K. N. (1999). Antologiya gumannoy pedagogiki [Anthology of Humane Pedagogy]. Izdatelstvo Dom Shalvy Amonashvilli. Zagvyazinskiy, V. I. (1987). Pedagogicheskoye tvorchestvo uchitelya [Teacher’s pedagogical creativity]. Pedagogika.

Part 2

The present

4 Institutional reform in the twentyfirst century and its impact on teacher education in Russia Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin

Introduction During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the political and economic difficulties of the 1990s were gradually being overcome. Consolidation of the federal government, a unified policy line, and a more favourable international environment contributed to the stabilisation and initiation of reforms in various spheres of social life (Gusinskij & Turchaninova, 2000). This chapter shows that education reform was one of the most significant challenges that the country faced. The reform required rapid changes in educational policy, content, teaching and learning technologies, scientific and professional activities. The chapter analyses the gradual changes in the system of school education and higher education including the sphere of teacher education. The reform of teacher education was considered one of the most important conditions for the success of the wider educational reforms. We see that despite numerous top-down and bottom-up initiatives aimed at emphasising the importance of teacher education for the modern Russian society, not all the problems of teacher education had been successfully solved. Implementation of several projects in this field was only the first step to ensure a systemic transformation of teacher training. Besides, such projects as the merger of pedagogical higher education institutions with non-pedagogical universities and frequent changes in the Federal State Educational Standards (FSES) prompted the search for new approaches in teacher education. This chapter elaborates on the state of the teacher education system today, its levels, types of educational institutions, structure and requirements of the FSES, student population and their distribution throughout the country. The chapter concludes by examining the role and contribution of new non-pedagogical universities as related to teacher education in Russia (Zeer & Simanyuk, 2005).

State teacher education policy A policy document called “The concept of modernization of Russian education for the period up to 2010”, was approved by the order of the Government of the Russian Federation in 2001. It outlined reform priorities in education

100  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin for the beginning of the twenty-first century. The paper was based on the following underlying principles: guaranteed accessible and free quality education, academic rigour of education, and the ability of education to respond to the current and future needs of a person, of society, and of the state. Fundamental principles led to reconsideration of the main goals and the mission of teacher education, which was considered to be the key factor in professional training of personnel for all areas of society. This idea has traditionally permeated the philosophy underlying teacher education in Russia, which, as discussed above, has undergone repeated transformations over its more than two hundred year history. The distinctive feature of modern reforms also arose from the fact that they took place during the period of changes in the political and economic systems of the country. Over the past decades, Russia had gradually moved away from the socialist traditions that dominated most of the twentieth century. Those traditions included no right to private ownership of the means of production, and the dominance of the communist ideology and social equality. The ideological shift in the post-Soviet era brought considerable changes in the country’s education system; however, the reforms could not completely neutralise the legacy of the past. Therefore, teacher education in Russia today is still a mixture of Soviet traditions and innovations introduced in the last two decades. Besides, the attempts to demolish the Soviet educational landscape have led to some completely unpredictable, often negative, consequences. A number of state projects in the field of teacher education were implemented over the past decades (Bermus, 2006; Bolotov, 2001, 2008). One of the first projects among them was the “Programme aimed at the Development of Continuous Pedagogical Education for the period of 2001–2010”. However, being quite perfunctory, the Programme was later supplemented with several more detailed acts, in particular, with the “Project of Modernisation of Teacher Education in the Russian Federation” (Project-2003). The Project was initiated by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in April 2003, and it provided for: • the commitment of the teacher education system to ensuring the development and high performance of its direct consumer – the school; • an intensification of research in psychology and education with the aim of scientific and methodological support of modernisation processes both in the school and in the system of teacher education; • the expansion of the use of state and public mechanisms in managing the development and maintenance of the teacher education system. The following were the first steps in the implementation of the Project2003: • the improvement of the structure and content of teacher education; • advanced training of the faculty staff on the problems of school modernisation;

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  101 • development of the system for monitoring and forecasting the needs of the Russian regions in teaching staff; • developing information technology in teacher education; • scientific and methodological support of teacher education. Some other items on the Project-2003 agenda were implemented later as part of other initiatives, for example, during the gradual accession to the Bologna Process. This relates primarily to the shift away, with a few exceptions, from the common practice of training personnel in particular specialisms. Such practice dominated for several decades and entailed a five-year period of study. Although Russia officially joined the Bologna Process in 2003, the conditions for this were already laid down in the 1990s. Thus, after the Law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’, which was adopted in 1992, the national education system provided for the possibility of implementing multilevel education programmes and several other innovations, as described in Chapter 3 (Artamonova, 2011; Bermus, 2005). Later, the Bologna Declaration radically transformed teacher education in Russia, but it failed to achieve some of the stated objectives. In particular, the following goals were not achieved: • the integration of the Russian education system into the European higher education system; • the establishment of a working system of student and teaching mobility; • an acceptance of Russian university degrees as equal with Europeans; • the provision of equal employment possibilities; • the development of massive joint education programmes aimed at obta­ ining joint degrees with other universities (Artamonova, 2011; Chetverikova, 2015; Dzhurinskii, 2004, 2018; Kalimullin et al., 2020). The announcement of 2010 as “the Year of the Teacher” in Russia did not radically change the situation either; however, it gave a significant impetus to discussions about school education, ways of reforming it, and necessary changes in teacher training. The national educational initiative “Our New School” identified development trends in education. The initiative elaborated on the modernisation of teacher education, which, in its turn, determined the success of further reforms. It also underlined that the new school, above all, means “teachers who are open to everything new, who have a solid grasp of child psychology and developmental psychology, and who know their subject well”. Despite these clearly stated goals, this initiative was not properly put into practice. Therefore, the Russian teacher education system was stuck in a transition phase for a long time and was not quite ready to face global and national challenges (Allen & Wright, 2014; Bolotov, 2012; Duda & Clifford-Amos, 2011; Fullan, 2014; Teacher Education Group, 2015). The teacher education system lagged behind the needs of the society which is why it could not even build an understanding of what the new education system should be

102  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin like. That resulted in the longest possible preservation of the Soviet traditions in education. It is no coincidence that teacher education has become the most conservative area of higher education in the country, and this was manifested in the somewhat superficial changes in the content of teacher training. An initial focus on depoliticising education contributed to the conservation of the basic organisational and content characteristics of the Soviet teacher education system. This lasted until the beginning of the twenty-first century when the Soviet system had finally become obsolete. In terms of the content, the following inconsistencies became apparent: • the discrepancy between the requirements of the new time and professional activity of teachers who were not equipped with the necessary knowledge and qualifications; • the gap between the content, technologies, learning outcomes of the main teacher training programmes and employers’ requirements regarding the competencies of graduate students; • the absence of a multitrack system aimed at attracting those students who are interested in obtaining the teaching profession; • the lack of a targeted policy to increase the prestige of the teaching profession and develop students’ sustainable motivation for future teaching activities (Bolotov, 2013, 2014). Organisationally, underperformance of traditional pedagogical universities and institutes became quite evident. Although in late Soviet times, pedagogical universities trained about 90–95 percent of teachers, they experienced numerous difficulties. Therefore, having begun in the 1990s, the process of merger of pedagogical universities with non-pedagogical universities became even more ambitious at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Meanwhile, the teaching profession grew even more unpopular among school graduates. That resulted in the fact that teacher training universities were chosen by school graduates with relatively poor qualifications. In view of this, until 2016, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation consistently pursued a policy of merging pedagogical universities with so-called federal and flagship universities. Such mergers were particularly intense under the Ministers Andrei Fursenko and Dmitry Livanov. The Law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’, adopted in 2012, prompted further reforms in the teacher education field. The law restated the main goals, principles, and requirements for education in the country. Also, the “Professional Standard for Teachers” adopted in 2013 had a great influence on the modernisation of teacher education programmes (Margolis, 2019a, 2019b). The Standard set out uniform requirements in relation to: • the curriculum and the quality of teaching; • the assessment of teacher qualification and certification;

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  103 • job descriptions of the teaching staff; • federal state educational standards for teacher education (Bermus, 2002; Bolotov, 2018). These policy documents, to a great extent, prompted the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation to start the implementation of “The Programme for Supporting the Development of Teacher Education” in 2014 (Sidorkin, 2014). At the first stage of the Programme, a comprehensive project “Modernization of Teacher Education” was carried out from 2014 to 2017. The project was implemented in two stages and included a total of 33 initiatives aimed at transforming the main methods and strategies of teacher training (Bolotov et al., 2015b; Margolis, 2019c; Polukarov, 2014). Overall 65 universities from different regions of the country participated in the project. Authors of the project set the following key objectives that subsequently outlined the main reform trajectories in teacher education in Russia: 1. Development of a competency-based model of teacher education acc­ ording to which a modern teacher is able to meet the requirements imposed by the Professional Standard for Teachers, the FSES, and the main challenges of the twenty-first century. 2. Provision of different ways to enter the teaching profession. 3. Implementation of an activity-based approach in teacher training. 4. Design of educational programmes based on the development of professionally oriented modules that ensure teachers’ readiness to tackle the main professional tasks. 5. Enhancement of future teachers’ practical training through the use of network interaction with educational organisations (the model of “school-university partnership”). 6. Standardisation of new approaches, including the development of the new model of lifelong teacher education and the model of competency-based teacher education; establishment of a regulatory framework. 7. Improvement of educational and methodological services, e.g. development of a library of professional educational modules and massive open online courses. 8. Scaling up the project through verification of revised teacher training programmes in the majority of universities preparing teachers; advanced training of leaders of education programmes and teaching staff; providing broad access to the results of the project to other Russian universities. 9. Ensuring the establishment of pilot sites for testing the model of targeted teacher training in the field of “Education and pedagogical sciences”. 10. Assessment of the quality of the developed educational programmes based on an independent assessment of students’ professional competencies; assessment should be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Professional Standard for Teachers. For four years, the universities participating in the comprehensive project developed and tested new teacher training programmes, assessment tools,

104  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin pedagogical practices, new educational technologies, and related matters (Fedorov et al., 2018). During the project implementation, a new model for designing modular basic professional educational programmes was successfully tested. The model makes it possible to implement an activity-based approach to teacher training. Forty-two new educational programmes, that prioritised the practical training of student teachers, were developed and tested (Margolis & Safronova, 2018; Margolis et al., 2018). At the end of 2017, the results of the implementation of these two stages of the comprehensive project on the modernisation of teacher education were evaluated. The results were assessed positively by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation which then planned to begin the implementation of the third stage of the project, aimed at scaling up and disseminating innovations in all teacher training universities. Unfortunately, these plans were abandoned due to new priorities of the Ministry, and many practices initiated during the first two stages of the project were not fully implemented. At the same time, diversification and partially reduced state involvement in the teacher education system required more drastic substantial modernisation in this area. It is important to emphasise that the modernisation of teacher education took place against the background of an increasing teacher shortage over the past 10–20 years. This trend existed in the majority of the countries in the world. According to the official statistics, in 2017, there were about twenty-one thousand teaching vacancies in Russia, which amounted to about one percent of all teachers in Russia. These data would have been more serious if a significant proportion of teachers had not worked extra hours. In this way, 1.4 million teachers covered the need for 1.9 million teaching vacancies in Russian schools. Such shortages were more critical in remote regions as well as in rural compared to urban schools. The analysis of the age composition of teachers showed an even more alarming situation. Official statistics indicated that nearly 25 percent of qualified teachers were retired. This situation was in sharp contrast to the situation in Soviet times when the state was able to almost completely cover the shortage of school teachers even in climatically unfavorable regions of the country. Destruction of existing standard practices resulted in outcomes at the beginning of the twenty-first century, including the following problem areas: • • • •

shortage and ageing of teaching staff; the low rate of young teachers remaining in schools; outflow of teachers from poor regions of the country; insufficient practical training of teachers and declining quality of general education; • preservation of the subject-specific teacher training model against the background of a growing demand for ‘soft’ and ‘self’ skills; • low efficiency of digitalisation of teacher education (Bolotov et al., 2015a; Bordovskii, 2018; Central Computing Center, 2018; Chetverikova, 2015).

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  105 The state has always sought to maintain the accessibility of free higher education for school graduates at the level of 57%. In 2019, the training of 499,000 people was funded from the federal budget. That year the enrolment for teacher education programmes was extremely high and comprised 62,000 people. Additionally, there were 40,000 fee-paying students, making a combined total of more than 100,000 students enrolling on teacher education programmes. Currently (2020) 9.4% of Russian students are taking a teacher education major. Nevertheless, the shortage of teachers is still growing.

Levels of teacher education Having introduced the main principles of the Bologna Declaration, Russia has developed a fairly complex system of higher pedagogical education. The system consists of several levels, including secondary vocational education that has remained from the Soviet times. Under Article 10 of the Federal Law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’ (2012), the contemporary system of professional education in Russia involves the following levels: (1) secondary vocational education; (2) higher professional education (bachelor’s degree); (3) higher professional education (specialist’s degree; master’s degree); (4) higher education (PhD degree). These levels also apply to teacher education, with the corresponding divisions: 1. Secondary vocational teacher education implemented by teacher training colleges and offered for 9th and 11th grade graduates (FSES for SVE in the specialty 44.02.02 Teaching in Elementary Classes no. 1353 as of October 27, 2014, 2014; FSES for SVE in the specialty 44.02.02 Preschool Education no. 1351 as of October 27, 2014, 2014). The length of full-time study is 3 years 10 months and 2 years 10 months, respectively. Until the late 1990s, teacher training colleges offered a wide variety of course programmes. Over the last years, this range has slightly decreased and includes the following: preschool education (conferring the qualification of a preschool teacher); teaching for primary school students (the qualification of a primary school teacher); extracurricular education (the qualification of a teacher of extracurricular education indicating a specialisation). 2. Higher professional teacher education (bachelor’s degree) (FSES for HE – bachelor’s degree in the specialty 44.03.01 Teacher Education no. 121 as of February 22, 2018, 2018; FSES for HE – bachelor’s degree in the specialty 44.03.02 Teacher Education and Psychology no. 122 as of February 22, 2018 (3++), 2018; FSES for HE – bachelor’s degree in the specialty 44.03.05 Teacher Education (with two specialties) no. 125 as of February 22, 2018 (3++), 2018; FSES for HE – bachelor’s degree in the specialty 44.03.03 Special (defectology) Education no. 123 as of February 22, 2018 (3++), 2018). A standard bachelor’s degree course

106  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin requires four years of study (240 ECTS credits). The degree programme may be slightly reduced if students have received the field-specific secondary vocational education. Some programmes are designed with two majors that are studied within the period of five years (300 ECTS credits), for instance, a teacher of mathematics and physics, biology and chemistry, etc. This is quite relevant for rural schools. The training of bachelor’s students is grouped into several pedagogical areas: a. b. c. d.

teacher education; psychological and pedagogical education; special needs (including speech therapy) education; professional education (field-specific).

Each of these groups offers courses in up to 15 majors. 3. Higher professional pedagogical education (specialist’s degree, master’s degree) (FSES for HE – master’s degree in the specialty 44.04.01 Teacher Education no. 126 as of February 22, 2018 (3++), 2018; FSES for HE – master’s degree in the specialty 44.04.03 Special (defectology) Education no. 128 as of February 22, 2018 (3++), 2018; FSES for HE – master’s degree in the specialty 44.04.02 Teacher Education and Psychology no. 127 as of February 22, 2018 (3++), 2018). Having joined the Bologna Process, a traditional five-year training of specialists was almost entirely discontinued. But in 2016, the FSES for the programme track 44.05.01 ‘Pedagogy and Psychology of Disruptive Behaviour’ (specialist’s degree) implying the five-year training (300 ECTS credits) was issued. The re-introduction of specialist’s degree programmes was due to the specifics of mastering a number of professions that require a longer period of study as compared to the standard bachelor’s degrees. Master’s degree programmes are developed directly by higher education institutions on the basis of the FSES relying on the priorities of university or the regional labour market needs (Baklashova et al., 2020; Savenkov et al., 2014; Vesmanov et al., 2014). Master’s courses are nominally divided into research and academic strands. The former is focused on the training of teachers-researchers (teachers as researchers). The latter is focused on the in-depth subject training. The regular period of study is two years consisting of 120 ECTS credits. 4. Higher education (postgraduate research degree) (FSES for HE in the specialty 44.06.01 Education and Pedagogic Sciences (advanced training) no. 902 as of July 30, 2014, 2014). The duration of study for PhD students is three years (180 ECTS credits). In contrast to previous levels, PhD programmes have a strong research component. The main result of postgraduate training is a successful defence of a PhD thesis. The study load for postgraduate students can be full-time, part-time, or in a mixed mode. This variability enables students to study at any time convenient for them, and to combine their studies with paid employment. They can also change their educational tracks without any difficulty. Overall, the

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  107 existing system in Russia may be seen as being fairly balanced. It ensures consistency between all levels and modes of teacher education far and wide across the whole nation (Solomin et al., 2015).

Federal State Educational Standards The modern Russian system of teacher education has inherited the Soviet traditions of strict regulation and unification of the content of educational activities. Almost all requirements for teacher training are specified in detail in the Federal State Educational Standards (FSES), set for all levels of teacher education. Strict compliance with requirements is obligatory for all educational institutions. This is due to the need to ensure the established level of quality of education, the unity of the educational space in the Russian Federation, and the objectivity of evaluating educational institutions. Each FSES is a set of obligatory requirements for the implementation of the main professional educational programmes of higher education. They are divided according to the levels of education. For example, there are FSES for: • an integrated group of specialisms (IGS) of secondary vocational education in the field ‘Education and Pedagogical Sciences’ 44.02.00; • an integrated group of specialisms (IGS) of higher education at the bachelor’s level in the field ‘Education and Pedagogical Sciences’ 44.03.00; • an integrated group of specialisms (IGS) of higher education at the master’s level in the field ‘Education and Pedagogical Sciences’ 44.04.00 • an integrated group of specialisms (IGS) of higher education at the postgraduate research level in the field ‘Education and Pedagogical Sciences’ 44.06.01; • FSES of higher education in the educational track 44.05.01 ‘Pedagogy and Psychology of Disruptive Behaviour’ at the specialist’s level. The standards of higher professional education for bachelor’s and master’s levels as the most popular approaches to teacher training include the following unified sections: I. General provisions. II. Requirements for the programme structure. III. Requirements for the programme outcomes. IV. Requirements for the conditions of the programme implementation. The FSES regulates all aspects of the development and implementation of teacher education programmes. However, they are created by higher education institutions themselves (Gogoberidze & Golovina, 2015, 2018; Kasprzhak, 2014). While developing an educational programme, each university sets out requirements for the course outcomes in the form of universal, general professional, and core professional competencies of graduates. A guide for developing an educational programme is the relevant Approximate Basic Educational

108  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin Programme (ABEP) included in the recommended Register of approximate basic educational programmes. It is envisaged that when implementing educational programmes, the university can employ e-learning platforms and distance education technologies. The specific features of inclusive education for people with disabilities are stipulated on an individual basis. The FSES strictly regulates the study load of educational programmes: • • • •

bachelor’s courses – 240 ECTS (300 ECTS in case of two majors); specialist’s courses – 300 ECTS; master’s courses – 120 ECTS; and postgraduate research courses – 180 ECTS

These credit ratings apply regardless of the mode of study, the educational technologies that are used, the implementation of programmes through a network form, and the implementation of programmes based on an individual education plan. Sixty ECTS represent one year of study. This system makes it possible to comply with the principles of the unified educational space, student mobility, and diploma recognition throughout the country. The FSES has a major influence on the structure of educational programmes. For instance, bachelor’s degree programmes have the following structure, as shown in Table 4.1. Master’s degree programmes have the following structure as shown in Table 4.2. The Block 1 ‘Disciplines (modules)’ specifies the requirements for taught disciplines. In particular, there is a list of obligatory subjects. The Block Table 4.1  The structure of bachelor’s degree programmes Course structure Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

The study load of bachelor’s course and its blocks in ECTS Disciplines (modules) Internship Final state certification


no less than 120 no less than 60 no less than 9 240

Table 4.2  The structure of master’s degree programmes Course structure Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Total: 120

The study load of master’s course and its blocks in ECTS Disciplines (modules) Internship Final state certification

no less than 50 no less than 40 no less than 9

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  109 2 includes academic practical training (introductory; technology training; research work) and work placement (teaching practicum; technology training; research work). Universities are entitled to choose one or several types of practical training or to introduce additional ones at their discretion (Margolis & Guruzhapov, 2014; Sidorkin, 2014; Zhirkova, 2012). The Block 3 ‘State Final Certification’ involves: preparation for and passing a state examination (if the state examination is included in the final state certification); writing and defence of a graduate qualification work. By and large, the modern system of teacher education in Russia creates conditions for the continuing education of teachers depending on their education, qualification, and experience. When developing programmes for different levels, students have an opportunity to take elective disciplines and optional modules. The flexibility and variability of the multi-level structure of teacher education allow any student to terminate a study programme after reaching a certain level and then continue studies at the next level in any university in any Russian region. This is facilitated by the fact that teacher education programmes have an obligatory part and an elective one, formed by participants of the educational process. The obligatory part includes disciplines (modules) and internships aimed at the formation of general professional competencies, as well as core professional competencies defined by the ABEP as mandatory (if any). Disciplines (modules) and internships ensuring the formation of universal competencies can be included in both the obligatory and elective parts (Tryapitsyna, 2013). The obligatory part of a programme also includes disciplines (modules), the content of which is consistent with the obligatory part of the ABEP. For example, in case of master’s courses, the obligatory part without the state final certification should make up no less than 40% of the total study load. Section Three of the ‘Requirement for the Programme Outcomes’ indicates competencies that should be formed during the study. Initially, the FSES sets down necessary requirements in the form of universal and general professional competencies. In turn, core professional competencies, specified by educational programmes, are formed on the basis of professional standards relevant to the professional activity of graduates (if any), and if necessary, based on the analysis of requirements for professional competencies that are imposed for graduates on the labour market, generalising Russian and international experience, holding consultations with major employers, employer associations, etc. A set of competencies, established by an educational programme at any level, should provide students with an ability to carry out professional activities. A set of expected training results should ensure that graduates develop all competencies specified by the programmes for various levels of higher education. One of the methods for monitoring the quality of training is compliance with the requirements for the implementation of degree courses. They are specified in Section Four and include system-wide requirements,

110  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin requirements for facilities and resources, teaching and learning materials, teaching staff, financial terms of the implementation of bachelor’s programmes, as well as requirements for the mechanisms used to assess the quality of educational activity and training of bachelor’s students (Bolotov, 2019; Potashnik, 2017). Contemporary FSES provide all students with ample opportunities for professional development due to their design. For instance, a mathematics teacher holding a bachelor’s degree can pursue studies enrolling on a similar programme at the master’s level and acquire skills required for teaching mathematics at university or in schools for gifted children. Another example is that a physics teacher with a bachelor’s degree may take a master’s course in order to teach children with behavioural problems, for example, in the penitentiary system. The combination of full-time and part-time modes of study and a range of master’s teacher education programmes for graduates of non-pedagogical, medical, and engineering universities create great opportunities for a variety of approaches. For instance, a health psychologist can be trained as a speech therapist; an engineer can become a technology or robotics teacher (Gafurov et al., 2018; Gogoberidze, 2015). This approach allows the Russian system of teacher education to train specialists for different types of educational institutions: pre-school institutions, including specialised ones; institutions of general secondary education, including lyceums, grammar schools, schools with advanced study of subjects; institutions of primary, secondary, higher and postgraduate professional education; institutions for people with disabilities; retraining and advanced professional training institutions. In addition to training and education, pedagogical universities focus on the following areas: social (adult) education, employment offices, pension funds, social and psychological rehabilitation centres for refugee children, support for children with behavioral disorders, homeless children, drug users, troubled youth; education management; family education and training (Gogoberidze & Golovina, 2018). Unfortunately however, over the past two decades, several FSES have been inconsistently implemented, which has had a destabilising effect on the educational process at universities and institutes that implement teacher education programmes. Often, they differed significantly from each other in the structure and sometimes in content, the ratio of basic and variable parts, and in the theoretical and practical training. At the same time, the development of new FSES should be seen as a drive towards continuous reform of the teacher training process. Their introduction led to major changes in the content of teacher training. Therefore, the 2018 Federal State Educational Standards (FSES 3++), which is used today, is quite an effective document that grants broad rights to higher education institutions when developing their own programmes. The content of current standards allows both traditional and innovative trends in the development of teacher education to be taken into account. For example, the traditional model in Russia, like the entire system of higher education, was built on the principle of narrow specialisation. In traditional

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  111 pedagogical education, in terms of content and organisation, the training of the future teacher as a subject specialist prevails. In the traditional training system, the focus is on the educational process, the relationship between the participants is built as subject-object (the subject is a teacher who follows the curriculum; the object is a student with a certain amount of knowledge with passive assimilation of information). Subject training in the traditional system is the ultimate goal in teacher training, and development problems are associated with such concepts as “improvement”, “qualitative improvement”, “fundamental renewal”, which neither affects the organisational model of education management, nor the content and the structure of the educational process. In terms of content, traditional teaching was built as a relationship between two autonomous activities: teaching activities of a teacher and educational and cognitive activities of students; learners acting as control objects. The purpose of the training was the assimilation of subject knowledge. The information-controlling function prevails in the leadership style. The leading form of educational interaction is imitation, the linearity of social and interpersonal interactions; external control and assessment of the result have dominated, as a result of which there is no strong cognitive motivation. Today, a multi-level system is actively developing, focusing on a wide variety of structures and a new procedure for including graduates in labour activity. This system is better adapted to the new needs of society, since schools, colleges and grammar schools, each need teachers of different qualifications and levels of training. The concept of multilevel education is based on the use of all individual personality traits, as well as providing all members of society with different development opportunities. The analysis of modern Russian teacher education programmes demonstrates that they are very full, entailing a significant intensity of the educational process in educational institutions (Margolis, 2014a, 2015). It should be borne in mind that when entering a university, students in Russia are required to choose a major (a specialisation in a specific subject area of professional activity, for example, mathematics, chemistry, history, etc.), which they will complete in four years of study. Most bachelor’s degree holders then continue studying for a master’s degree. Thus, the full course of study for most modern teachers is six years. For graduates of teacher training colleges, the general training cycle can reach nine years. The duration of training raises the question of shortening the duration of the training, which becomes an especially acute issue amid the growing shortage of teachers.

The organisational structure of teacher education Reforms in the field of teacher education in the post-Soviet Russia were marked by the integration of pedagogical institutes with other universities and the creation of regional multidisciplinary universities in this area. This process was caused by a decrease in government spending on education, which determined the outflow of teachers and their shortage due to low wages, and the deterioration of the material and technical equipment

112  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin of pedagogical universities. The main problem of Russian education had become its chronic underfunding (Margolis, 2014b). Although since 2000 it has been possible to achieve a greater expenditure in this area in comparison with general economic indicators, the annual expenditure of the Russian budget system on education amounted to 2.8% of GDP, and by 2005 it had increased to almost 4%. Meanwhile, in many developed countries, at least 5.3–5.5% was allocated to the education sector, and in Japan, South Korea, and China, it could be as high as 15–25% of GDP. The weak link in the educational system of the country was primarily seen to be in the pedagogical universities, which the government could not sufficiently support during the years of economic difficulties. Due to their specificity, teacher training institutions have also shown a low potential for the commercialisation of their activities. Only the pedagogical universities in Moscow and St. Petersburg had a noticeable part of their income not only from the state but also from other sources (Solomin, 2014a, 2014b, Solomin et al., 2014). This allowed them to support scientific research, attract the best teachers, and modernise the infrastructure of the educational process. Most of the regional universities did not prosper, but they had stable government support in the form of a federal order for teacher training in a particular region of the country, i.e. focusing primarily on solving regional problems. The lack of additional resources caused a protracted stagnation of regional pedagogical universities. With state funding, they certainly could not perish, but they were forced to save on educational infrastructure, advanced training of teachers, as well as on salaries, which entailed a special outflow of the best professors to universities in Moscow and St. Petersburg and other spheres of the economy. This reduced the quality of educational programmes in the outlying regions, making them unattractive for school graduates. The monitoring of the effectiveness of the activities of pedagogical universities, conducted annually by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, showed that half of them did not meet all expected criteria of educational activity. The situation was aggravated by the aggressive policy of private higher education institutions that had been actively appearing since the second half of the 1990s. They began to actively offer teacher training programmes at a relatively low cost, significantly reducing the additional income of regional teacher training universities. The demographic decline caused by the difficult economic conditions of the 1990s had a noticeable impact on the stagnation of traditional pedagogical universities. Problems with the recruitment of applicants, a decrease in the quality of admission, especially in the context of individual specialisms (majors), have been experienced to some extent by almost all pedagogical universities in the country. It is no coincidence that some of them in the first monitoring studies of the quality of admission were in the group of ‘outsiders’ among other groups of higher educational institutions in Russia. For example, in 2012, out of 63 universities with a pedagogical specialisation, 10 ended up in the category designated red, which was a critical area for applicants’ Unified State Examination (USE) indicators (NRU HSE, n.d.).

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  113 At the same time, even in the difficult economic and demographic conditions at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries, some pedagogical universities have gained new development experience. Many of them were involved in the process of diversification known as ‘universalisation’ (or diversification), which was characterised by a change in structure as a result of the implementation of new non-educational training programmes. Most noticeably, this happened in fairly large universities with significant potential for offering atypical areas of educational activity. The drift away from mono-specialisation was in many ways a forced, but a vital step for them, which allowed them to get through economic difficulties. First of all, this affected the opening of the most popular specialisms among school graduates – such as economic, legal, linguistic, and political science studies, and, to a lesser extent, IT and natural sciences. In some cases, this process has become so successful and sustained that now in several teacher training universities, the share of the non-teaching sector remains very significant. For example, this indicator at the leading universities – Moscow State Pedagogical University and the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen reached 30% in different years (Solomin, 2014c). Statistical data show that, as a rule, regional pedagogical universities are less actively involved in this restructuring. The reason for this was the lack of resources to run such programmes, their low competitiveness, and sometimes the inertia of the leadership of these universities. This made it possible to preserve the dominance of the pedagogical sector in their structure but deprived them of opportunities for modernisation. Nevertheless, commercialisation has affected, to one degree or another, almost all higher educational institutions. This phenomenon, which was completely absent in Soviet times, when higher education was free, became one of the most important signs of a shift away from socialist principles. At the same time, fully complying with the strategy for the formation of market relations in the country, the transformation of education into a service provision has made it possible to increase the availability of higher education in Russia. In the conditions of insufficient state funding, the liberalisation of educational services made it possible to support the economic systems of pedagogical universities and institutes. But it also marked the beginning of the devaluation of the quality of the educational process in many educational institutions, due to the increased number of unprepared students, the inability to quickly increase the number of qualified teachers. Another controversial trend of this period was an active introduction of teacher training programmes in non-pedagogical higher educational institutions, including the non-state sector. The prerequisites for this were the needs of the regional labour market, economic goals, and other factors. In some cases, these higher education institutions had sufficient potential to implement teacher training programmes, but often there were only commercial interests behind this. The whole complex of the reasons outlined here led to the implementation of measures to join pedagogical institutes and universities to other higher

114  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin educational institutions (Valeeva & Kalimullin, 2019). This in turn has led to a gradual reduction in the number of specialised pedagogical institutions and, on the contrary, an increase in the number of non-pedagogical universities that implement teacher training programmes. For example, in Russia at the end of the 1990s, more than 170 higher educational institutions, including 90 pedagogical universities and institutes, trained teachers. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the Russian system of pedagogical education consisted of 79 universities. In 2008, 70 specialised universities already trained pedagogical personnel, and by 2012 their number had dropped to 48. The modern training system includes more than 250 higher educational institutions of various types and affiliations, of which only 33 are state pedagogical universities and institutes. They differ significantly in size and, to a lesser extent, in forms of ownership (state, municipal, private). The overwhelming majority of universities implementing teacher education programmes are state-owned. The largest of them are Moscow State Pedagogical University, Russian State Pedagogical University, Kazan Federal University, Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, and Moscow City Pedagogical University. Approximately 53% of students on teacher education programmes study in universities with more than one thousand students. Table 4.3 summarises the official data provided by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Central Computing Center, 2018). To summarise the nature of current provision, all higher education institutions implementing teacher education programmes can be classified into the following groups: 1. Specialised pedagogical universities and institutes. 2. Non-pedagogical universities implementing teacher training progra­m­mes. 3. Specialised technical, economic, humanitarian, linguistic, agricultural, and other higher education institutions that implement teacher training programmes. 4. Federal and regional flagship and other universities that arose as a result of the merger of several institutions, including pedagogical universities. 5. Non-state higher educational institutions that implement separate educational programmes for teacher training. Russia has the largest area of any country in the world and its size is still one of the leading factors determining the national specifics of teacher education, which is traditionally subject to strict unification and regulation. Practically in each of the 85 constituent entities of the Russian Federation (they are united in eight federal districts), there is at least one higher educational institution offering teacher training programmes. Their number is increasing in industrially developed regions with a high population density, for example, in the largest cities and the centre of the country (data from 2017). Table 4.4 summarises the official data provided by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Central Computing Center, 2018).

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  115 Table 4.3  The largest universities in the field of teacher training No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

University Moscow State Pedagogical University Russian State Pedagogical University Kazan Federal University Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Moscow City Pedagogical university Dagestan State Pedagogical University Ural State Pedagogical University South Ural State Humanitarian Pedagogical University Omsk State Pedagogical University Moscow Region State University

Student teacher population 10639,25 8084,1 5575,1 5124,7 4883,15 4295,1 4225,75 4074,5 4068,85 3949,4

In 2017, the total number of students in all forms and levels of higher education in teacher training programmes was 229,463. However, one should take into account the specifics of counting, meaning that due to the state financing of teacher education, students are counted according to the following scheme. Full-time students are counted in ratio 1:1, and part-time students are counted in ratio 1:10, that is, one full-time student corresponds to ten part-time students. This means that the state allocates more funds for educating full-time pre-service teachers. There was a nearly equal number of students in pedagogical and non-pedagogical organisations in 2017, but the former group of students started to slightly increase in 2020. Nevertheless, the amount of teacher training in some of the non-pedagogical universities is fairly similar to pedagogical ones. For example, Kazan Federal University is one of the three largest teacher education centres in Russia with ten thousand pre-service teachers. The amount of teacher education programmes is significant at Southern Federal University, Vladimir State University, and North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk. At the same time, there are educational organisations where as few as 10 future teachers learn. The question about the quality of teacher training programmes’ realisation at different universities is becoming relevant. Certainly, the quality is different and it can be implicitly confirmed taking into account the following factors: qualifications of faculty members, range and variety of educational programmes, grade point average of prospective students’ Unified State Examination (USE), publication activity of staff in education and psychology, and the participation of scientists in large federal projects. Along with material and technical infrastructure, other important components are library and information resources, such as the professional educational community, the environment, and traditions. The definitive factor of the rising role of non-pedagogical universities is their active participation in the Teacher Education Modernization Project in 2014–2017 (36 out of all 65 participants) (see Chapter 6). However, it should be noted that nearly 200 higher education organisations were not

Universities Federal district

Pedagogical Number of universities

Other Student Number of population universities

Private Student Number of population universities

Student population




























North Caucasian





















Far Eastern















Total number of universities

82 (including 3 branches) 26 44 (including 3 branches) 26 (including 5 branches) 24 (including 5 branches) 22 (including 2 branches) 38 (including 4 branches) 14 (including 1 branch) 276 (including 23 branches)

Student population

Percentage of the total amount of students (%)



















116  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin

Table 4.4  Information on educational organisations implementing programmes for IGS 44.00.00 “Education and Pedagogical Sciences” (2017)

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  117 involved in the project at the end, showing their disengagement in current modernisation processes. Therefore, today teacher training has become the recognised sphere not only in pedagogical universities but also in non-pedagogical, primarily, federal, flagship, and classical universities. Now the teaching programmes are implemented in different departmental units. They have various names, such as branches, faculties, institutes within universities, departments, and schools. Furthermore, there is still a high percentage of education organisations without specialised organisational units. The structure of such units to a great extent depends on the amount of educational programmes, students, and the overall mission of the university.

The role of new universities in teacher education Over the last decade, the range of problems of teacher training in Russia indicated that it would be impossible to solve them in the context of the traditional system. From this perspective, we should consider the involvement of new higher education organisations as the improvement in the development of the educational sphere. International practice proved that students, who pursue teacher training at university, are expected to have a higher level of professional qualification, including their fundamental knowledge of academic disciplines and research-based education. At the same time, this means that two different approaches to teaching (the first one prioritising knowledge, and the second one putting emphasis on moral education) converge. Furthermore, it leads to the development of the new paradigm of teacher education at universities, focusing on interdisciplinary research. Therefore, the emergence of various education organisations with different specific aims and resources can lead to the integrated modernisation of teacher training. Moreover, the role of the new actors in the system of teacher education in Russia cannot be overstated in view of their different levels of capacity. This is mainly about the group of federal and local flagship universities, which, as a result of mergers, included formerly independent pedagogical higher education organisations in their structure. For instance, this was the case at Kazan Federal University (see Chapter 5), Southern Federal University, Pskov State University, Vyatka State University, Petrozavodsk State University, and several others (Bermus, 2002a, 2002b, 2014). Table 4.5 summarises the official data provided by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Central Computing Center, 2018). The development of federal universities started in 2006 when Siberian Federal University and Southern Federal University were established. During 2010–2014, eight similar multidisciplinary universities were founded. Almost all of them – nine out of ten – have a significant number of teacher education programmes. In six universities, the number of pre-service teachers exceeds one thousand. This indicates a wide diversity of programmes in this field.

118  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin Table 4.5  Teacher Education at Federal Universities No

Higher Education Organisation

1. 2. 3. 4.

Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University Southern Federal University North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk Far Eastern Federal University Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. 5. Lomonosov 6. Siberian Federal University 7. V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University 8. North-Caucasus Federal University 9. Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University 10. Ural Federal University Total: 17098,55

Student Body 5575,1 2804,85 2365,55 1764,9 1593,1 1056,9 861,2 742,6 333,6 0,75

In 2016–2017, 33 flagship universities were created as a result of university mergers in Russia. Some of them also included pedagogical universities in their structure at some point. Twenty out of 33 flagship universities have teacher education programmes. Furthermore, nine universities in this group have a large number of teacher training programmes. Table 4.6 summarises the official data provided by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Central Computing Center, 2018).

Table 4.6  Teacher Education at Flagship Universities No

Higher Education Organisation

Vladimir State University named after Alexander and Nikolay Stoletovs 2. Pitirim Sorokin Syktyvkar State University 3. Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev 4. Petrozavodsk State University 5. Mari State University 6. Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University 7. Vyatka State University 8. Pskov State University 9. Murmansk Arctic State University 10. Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University 11. Kemerovo State University 12. Cherepovets State University 13. Togliatti State University 14. Kalmyk State University named after B.B. Gorodovikov 15. Sochi State University 16. Altai State University 17. Reshetnev Siberian State University of Science and Technology 18. Don State Technical University 19. Samara State Technical University 20. Novosibirsk State Technical University Total: 17452,2 1.

Student body 2391,25 1616,6 1596,6 1562,4 1556,5 1403,35 1363,6 1228,3 953,6 795,6 639,9 614 509 475,8 353,8 210,1 75,1 72,5 27 7,2

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  119 Despite the criticism of university mergers during the first stage, now it is fair to say that federal and flagship universities are successful and they received recognition in the teacher education field in Russia. At the moment, 15% of all student teachers are from these universities. In addition, as a result of mergers of pedagogical universities and the leading classical and federal universities, robust teacher education centres were established in many regions by means of concentration of resources. They often have better material and technical infrastructure, modern management systems, and interdisciplinary human resources. These days such multidisciplinary hubs are the new types of universities in the field of the Russian teacher education. They have greater flexibility for ways of entering the teaching profession, well-developed infrastructure, and a wide range of education services by means of the combination of the benefits of classical and pedagogical universities. For example, the classical universities have a robust workforce and laboratory capacity, especially in the field of natural sciences, and the pedagogical ones are strong in didactics. All these strengths, which are necessary for the comprehensive training of competent teachers, were combined together in the multidisciplinary universities. The following typical characteristics of the new universities in the Russian teacher education can be defined: 1. The specialist teacher education units in the structure (institutes, faculties, etc.). 2. A significant number of students under the integrated group of training areas “Education and Pedagogical Sciences” in the educational structure of the university. 3. The realisation of a wide range of academic programmes in subject areas of the modern general schools education and different levels of teacher education. 4. The development of the educational and scientific identity of teacher-researchers in the context of a non-pedagogical university. Perhaps it is no surprise that federal and flagship universities, especially the participants of the special government programme “Russian Academic Excellence Project” (Project 5-100), address a wide range of challenges and compete for internal and external financing, which ensures their vitality (Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, n.d.). The Government usually provides such support in teacher education. However, the experience of the new actors in the system of teacher education showed that initial training, retraining, and further training of teachers became a highly effective area of focus, primarily in terms of research and economic productivity. In this regard, exploration and implementation of the leading international experience, usually underestimated in national pedagogy, was a promising development in Russian education policy. Persistent insufficient engagement of Russian academic staff with the international research agenda, the lack of joint projects, and research with international colleagues

120  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin was the legacy of political confrontation of the two major political systems during the Soviet period. Nevertheless, the changed situation, globalisation and common educational problems led to more active collaboration in this field. Therefore, a number of the new universities, focused on topical studies, were oriented towards improving their position in international rankings, academic reputation, research indicators, and publication activities. The multifaceted brainpower of the new Russian universities, as the centres of interdisciplinary research, allowed for a significant increase in research activity in the field of education. The most successful practices of the research activity were developed in Kazan Federal University and Higher School of Economics in Moscow. During the first decade of the twenty-first century, in the Russian system of teacher education, there was a move towards the close integration of the traditional model with the world-renowned model of teacher education in classical and other universities (Minyurova & Leonenko, 2015). It did not imply that the new model came into conflict with the traditional one. The new model simply extended and provided a wider range of opportunities to master the teaching profession. It is necessary to provide considerable government support to establish the model in view of the global changes, which affected all spheres of life in Russia in recent years. In the current context, teacher education is considered as broad humanities knowledge, which allows for work not only in the ‘person-to-person’ sector but in the ‘person-to-society’ sector. A new phase of social development calls for a new type of teacher, in particular a professional, who can see humans in their unique entirety and is aware of laws of human development in the fields of science, technology, art, public life, and labour. The current Russian experts have maintained that the main and critical advantage of graduates from classical universities (student teachers) is to have the following qualities: competence, responsibility, in-depth knowledge about the profession, academic and social mobility, awareness of the related areas of work, and readiness for the effective academic and research work, self-­ education and self-improvement. Now ‘a teacher of a new breed’ is needed in Russian society. The teacher who is energetic, creative, and ready for independent research of knowledge and can apply this knowledge to practice. The emergence of these two main groups of higher education organisations, which provide teacher training, raises the question of the desirability of dividing the unified system. It seems reasonable to keep traditional pedagogical universities, which undoubtedly have their own strengths in teacher training. Another group of non-pedagogical universities can be developed in line with international frameworks. The cooperation and competition of these two groups of universities, as an impetus for further improvement of the effectiveness, should be accompanied by greater transparency, which is one of the leading approaches to the development of higher education in the world (Valeeva & Gafurov, 2017). It can be suggested that in the coming years, the sphere of teacher education will become the forum where transformational institutional changes

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  121 will be held and also, it will become a priority of education policy. The objectives of economic expansion, creation of a favourable social climate, and the development of civic society will improve the status of education as an essential social institution once again. This calls for the formation of an effective system of teacher education, which traditionally acted as core guidance for the state policy in education and upbringing of the future generations in Russia. This became especially evident in the challenging times of the COVID-19 pandemic, which revealed the weaknesses of the traditional system. Large multidisciplinary university hubs were best prepared to move to remote learning. In Russia, this could take the form of the special state support for those universities which aspire to become the drivers of teacher education transformation. Perhaps, the Russian system of teacher training will be in line with the global trends when a group of the leading universities will be selected. They will provide support and directions for the relatively small educational organisations.

Conclusion The current system of teacher education was developed in Russia during the first two decades of the twentieth century. Transformation of the teacher education system at the beginning of the twenty-first century came amid major political, economic, and social reforms when the Russian society was in transition from socialism to capitalism. Oftentimes reform initiatives resulted in failures completely changing the status of teachers, educational institutions, and education. Nonetheless, various experiments were conducted in search of new models of teacher training. Changes were introduced to the legislative framework, organisation, and economics of teacher education. The scientific foundation and the content of teacher education were also refined. Teacher shortages, the complicated requirements in teachers’ professionalism, and the insufficient recruitment of graduating students from school forced the government to engage in a more active search for the ways to modernise teacher education in the first decades of the twenty-first century. Along with other activities, the large-scale project “Modernisation of Teacher Education” was particularly important (2014–2017). The adequate economic and social support, the increased number of state-financed openings for student teachers, and an initiative for some legislative acts can also be pointed out. The propensity for innovation resulted in frequent changes in Federal State Educational Standards, which regulated the key requirements and the content of teacher training courses of different levels. The drastic change to the approach to their development often confirmed the ambition to improve teacher education in Russia. It was the solution to the current educational challenges which Russian society faced. The transformational changes were connected with the changing approaches to the teacher’s professionalism (according to the new objectives) and the increased role of teachers and their additional duties. Realisation of teacher training programmes based on

122  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin the unified FSES can be considered as a positive trend as it allowed for the systematisation of the process of teacher education across the vast territory of the country. The analysis of the FSES indicated not only their restrictive functions but also the capacity, independence, flexibility, and variability of higher education institutions in designing teacher education programmes. It should be pointed out that the programmes are quite intense and of long duration compared with those in many other countries. The development of this diversified model of teacher education in Russia appears to be taking a new direction. Previously, teacher education was limited to the monopoly of the state higher education organisations. Nowadays, the number of pre-service teachers is nearly the same in the two main groups. The official recognition of the diverse system of the Russian teacher education and the specificity of the various groups of educational organisations took place when 33 pedagogical universities and institutes were moved under the control of the Federal Ministry of Education in 2020. Previously, only educational institutions of primary, secondary, or higher vocational level were included in the sphere of influence of this Ministry. At the same time, more than 200 different higher education organisations, which have teacher training programmes, stayed under the control of Ministry of Science and Higher Education. It can be predicted that the development of the dual system of teacher education in Russia will fairly soon necessitate organisational and content-related differentiation of teacher training programmes, depending on the type of higher education organisation.

References Allen, J. M., & Wright, S. E. (2014). Integrating theory and practice in the pre-service teacher education practicum. Teachers and Teaching, 20(2), 136–151. Artamonova, E. I. (2011). Peculiarities of organization of multilevel teacher education and its functioning in the framework of the Bologna process. Pedagogicheskoye obrazovanie i nauka, 8, 8–15. Baklashova, T. A., Sakhieva, R. G., Telegina, N. V., & Skobeltsyna, E. G. (2020). Design of praxis programs for students of pedagogical master’s degree studies in the context of Federal State Educational Standards implementation. Talent Development and Excellence, 12, 153–162. Bermus, A. G. (2014). Pedagogicheskii komponent mnogourovnevogo professional'no orientirovannogo universitetskogo obrazovaniya [The pedagogical component of a multilevel professionally oriented university education]. Nepreryvnoe obrazovanie: XXI vek, 1(5), 60–77. Bermus, A. G. (2002a). Istoriko-kul'turnye osnovy universitetskogo pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya. Istoriko-kul'turnye i nauchno-pedagogicheskie problemy reformirovaniya i modernizatsii obrazovaniya v Rossii [Historical and cultural foundations of university pedagogical education. Historical, cultural, scientific and pedagogical problems of reforming and modernizing education in Russia]. Izvestiya Yuzhnogo otdeleniya Rossiiskoi akademii obrazovaniya, 4, 46–72. Bermus, A. G. (2002b). Sistema kachestva professional'no-pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya [The quality system of professional and pedagogical education]. Izd-vo Rostovskogo universiteta.

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  123 Bermus, A. G. (2005). Rossiiskoe pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie v Bolonskom kontekste: vyzovy, problemy, perspektivy [Russian pedagogical education in the Bologna context: challenges, problems, prospects]. Pedagogika, 10, 102–109. Bermus, A. G. (2006). Prioritety modernizatsii otechestvennogo pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya [Priorities of modernization of domestic pedagogical education.]. Obrazovatel'naya politika, 10, 37–41. Bolotov, V. A. (2001). Theory and practice of the teacher education reform in Russia in terms of social change [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. St. Petersburg. Bolotov, V. A. (2008). O putyakh i strategii razvitiya vysshego professional'nogo obrazovaniya [On the ways and strategies for the development of higher professional education]. Alma mater (Vestnik vysshei shkoly), 9, 6–11. Bolotov, V. A. (2012). Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie: est' li shans? [Teacher education: is there a chance?] Direktor shkoly, 10(173), 12–17. Bolotov, V. A. (2013). Considerations on the reform of pedagogical education. Professional Education. Stolitza, 10, 6–10. Bolotov, V. A. (2014). The issues of the teacher education reform. Psychological Science and Education, 19(3), 32–40. Bolotov, V. A. (2018). Proshloe, nastoyashchee i vozmozhnoe budushchee rossiiskoi sistemy otsenki kachestva obrazovaniya [The past, present and possible future of the Russian system for assessing the quality of education]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 3, 287–297. Bolotov, V. A. (2019). Akkreditatsiya vuzov: poryadki i besporyadki [Accreditation of universities: order and disorder]. Obrazovatel'naya politika, 1(2), 64–66. Bolotov, V. A., Kardanova, E. Yu., Enchikova, E. S., Ilyushina, N. V., & Navodnov, V. G. (2015a). K voprosu ob otsenke kachestva vysshego obrazovaniya [On the issue of assessing the quality of higher education]. Vysshee obrazovanie segodnya, 6, 3–8. Bolotov, V. A., Rubtsov, V., Frumin, I. D., Margolis, A., Kasprzhak, A. G., Safronova, M., & Kalashnikov, S. P. (2015b). Informatsionno-analiticheskie materialy po itogam pervogo etapa proekta «Modernizatsiya pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya» [Information and analytical materials following the results the first stage of the project “Modernization of teacher education”]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie, 20(5), 13–28. Bordovskii, G. A. (2018). Tendentsii razvitiya pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya [Trends in the development of teacher education]. https://kpfu.ru/psychology/nauchno-issledovatelskaya-deyatelnost/nauchnoobrazovatelnyj-centr/novosti/tendencii-razvitiya-pedagogicheskogo-obrazovaniya_341989.html Central Computing Center. (2018). Characteristics of the system of higher education in Russia. http://indicators.miccedu.ru/monitoring/2018/index.php?m=vpo Chetverikova, O. N. (2015). Razrushenie budushchego. Kto i kak unichtozhaet suverennoe obrazovanie v Rossii [Destruction of the future. Who and how destroys sovereign education in Russia]. http://www.odigitria.by/2015/07/15/razrushenie-budushhego-kto-ikak-unichtozhaet suverennoe-obrazovanie-v-rossii-o-n-chetverikova/ Duda, A., & Clifford-Amos, T. (2011). Study on teacher education for primary and secondary education in six countries of the Eastern Partnership: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Final report. European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Dzhurinskii, A. N. (2004). Internatsionalizatsiya vysshego obrazovaniya v sovremennom mire [Internationalization of higher education in modern world]. Pedagogika, 3, 83–92.

124  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin Dzhurinskii, A. N. (2018). Vysshee obrazovanie v sovremennom mire: trendy i problem [Higher education in the modern world: Trends and problems]. Prometei. Federal State Education Standards for Higher Education in the specialty 44.06.01 Education and Pedagogic Sciences (advanced training) no. 902 as of July 30, 2014. (2014). http://fgosvo.ru/uploadfiles/fgosvoaspism/440601.pdf Federal State Education Standards for Higher Education – bachelor’s degree in the specialty 44.03.01 Teacher Education no. 121 as of February 22, 2018. (2018). http:// fgosvo.ru/uploadfiles/FGOS%20VO%203++/Bak/440301_B_3_16032018.pdf Federal State Education Standards for Higher Education – bachelor’s degree in the specialty 44.03.02 Teacher Education and Psychology no. 122 as of February 22, 2018 (3++). (2018). http://fgosvo.ru/uploadfiles/FGOS%20VO%203++/ Bak/440302_B_3_20032018.pdf Federal State Education Standards for Higher Education – bachelor’s degree in the specialty 44.03.05 Teacher Education (with two specialties) no. 125 as of February 22, 2018 (3++). (2018). http://fgosvo.ru/uploadfiles/FGOS%20VO%203++/ Bak/440305_B_3_16032018.pdf Federal State Education Standards for Higher Education – bachelor’s degree in the specialty 44.03.03 Special (defectology) Education no. 123 as of February 22, 2018 (3++). (2018). http://fgosvo.ru/uploadfiles/FGOS%20VO%203++/ Bak/440303_B_3_20032018.pdf Federal State Education Standards for Higher Education – master’s degree in the specialty 44.04.01 Teacher Education no. 126 as of February 22, 2018 (3++). (2018). http://fgosvo.ru/uploadfiles/FGOS%20VO%203++/Mag/440401_M_3_ 16032018.pdf Federal State Education Standards for Higher Education – master’s degree in the specialty 44.04.03 Special (defectology) Education no. 128 as of February 22, 2018 (3++). (2018). http://fgosvo.ru/uploadfiles/FGOS%20VO%203++/ Mag/440403_M_3_19032018.pdf Federal State Education Standards for Higher Education – master’s degree in the specialty 44.04.02 Teacher Education and Psychology no. 127 as of February 22, 2018 (3++). (2018). http://fgosvo.ru/uploadfiles/FGOS%20VO%203++/ Mag/440402_M_3_14032108.pdf Federal State Education Standards for Secondary Vocational Education in the specialty 44.02.02 Teaching in Elementary Classes no. 1353 as of October 27, 2014. (2014a). https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/70709794/ Federal State Education Standards for Secondary Vocational Education in the specialty 44.02.02 Preschool Education no. 1351 as of October 27, 2014. (2014b). https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/70710642/ Fedorov, A. A., Paputkova, G. A., Samerkhanova, E. K., Filchenkova, I. F., & Demidova, N. N. (2018). New design of university educational ecosystem in the context of modernisation of teacher education in Russia. Psychological Science and Education, 23(5), 52–63. Fullan, M. (2014). Teacher development and educational change. Routledge. Gafurov, I. R., Valeeva, R. A., Kalimullin, A. M., & Sahieva, R. G. (2018). Testing Practice-Oriented Master’s Programme in “Education and Pedagogical Sciences” (Teacher of Basic General Education). Psychological Science and Education, 23(5), 25–37. Gogoberidze, A. G. (2015). Training of applied bachelors for work in the field of preschool education. RGPU A.I. Herzen.

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  125 Gogoberidze, A. G., & Golovina, I. V. (2015). Model and modules for training applied bachelors for work in the field of preschool education. Psychological Science and Education, 20(5), 99–107. Gogoberidze, A. G., & Golovina, I. V. (2018). Modernisation of kindergarten teacher education: Markers of new basic professional educational programmes. Psychological Science and Education, 23(5), 38–45. Gusinskij, J. N., & Turchaninova, J. I. (2000). Vvedenie v filosofiju obrazovanija [Introduction to philosophy of education]. Logos. Kalimullin, A. M., Zhigalova, M. P., Ibrasheva, A. K., Kobylyanskaya, L. I., Lodatko, E. A., & Nurlanov, E. (2020). Postsovetskaya identichnost' v pedagogicheskom obrazovanii: proshloe, nastoyashchee, budushchee [Post-Soviet Identity in Teacher Education: Past, Present, Future]. Obrazovanie i samorazvitie, 15(3), 145–163. Kasprzhak, A. G. (2014). Building рrograms module of the basic educational program (graduate, undergraduate) from the results. http://pedagogicheskoeobrazovanie. rf/documents/show/13 Margolis, A. A. (2014a). Problems and prospects of pedagogical education development in the Russian Federation. Psychological Science and Education, 19(3), 54–55. Margolis, A. A. (2014b). Requirements to BVEP modernization of teachers’ training according to the Professional Standard for the teacher: proposals on activity-based approach realization in teachers training. Psychological Sciences and Education, 19(3), 120–121. Margolis, A. A. (2015). Models of teacher training under the scope of applied bachelor’s and pedagogical masters programs. Psychological Science and Education, 20 (5), 99–107. Margolis, A. A. (2019a). Modernizatsiya pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya v Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Modernization of teacher education in the Russian Federation]. MGPPU. Margolis, A. A. (2019b). Otsenka kvalifikatsii uchitelya: obzor i analiz luchshikh zarubezhnykh praktik [Assessment of teacher qualifications: Review and analysis of the best foreign practices]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie, 24(1), 5–30. Margolis, A. A. (2019c). Professional'nyi standart pedagoga: razrabotka i ispol'zovanie v Rossii i za rubezhom [Professional standard of a teacher: Development and use in Russia and abroad]. MGPPU. Margolis, A. A., & Guruzhapov, V. A. (2014). Proektirovanie modeli praktiko-orientirovannoi podgotovki pedagogicheskikh kadrov po programmam bakalavriata po napravleniyu podgotovki “Psikhologo-pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie” (Uchitel' nachal'nykh klassov) na osnove setevogo vzaimodeistviya obrazovatel'nykh organizatsii, realizuyushchikh programmy vysshego obrazovaniya i nachal'nogo obshchego obrazovaniya. [Designing a model of practice-oriented training of pedagogical personnel for undergraduate programs in the direction of training “Psychological and pedagogical education” (Primary school teacher) on the basis of network interaction of educational organizations implementing higher education and primary general education programs]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie, 19(3), 143–159. Margolis, A. A., & Safronova, M. A. (2018). The project of modernisation of teacher education in the Russian Federation: Outcomes 2014–2017. Psychological Science and Education, 23(5), 5–24. Margolis, A. A., Safronova, M. A., Panfilova, A. S., & Shishlyannikova, L. M. (2018). Outcomes of independent evaluation of general professional competencies in future teachers. Psychological Science and Education, 23(5), 64–81.

126  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. (n.d.). Russian Academic Excellence Project. https://5top100.ru/en/ Minyurova, S. A., & Leonenko, N. O. (2015). Pedagogicheskaya internatura kak innovatsionnyi proekt vuza [Pedagogical internship as an innovative project of the university]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 10, 37–47. NRU HSE. (n.d.). State-funded universities admission statistics – 2012: average and minimum scores on USE in different specialties. https://ege.hse.ru/rating/2012/44754396/gos/?rlist=&glist=%D0%9F%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0 %D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0 %BE%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5&vuz-abiturients-budget-order=ge&vuzabiturients-budget-val= Polukarov, V. V. (2014). K voprosu o kontseptsii podderzhki razvitiya pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya v Rossii i usloviyakh regiona [On the concept of support for the development of teacher education in Russia and the conditions of the region]. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Povolzhskii region. Gumanitarnye nauki, 2(30), 196–204. Potashnik, M. M. (2017). K chemu privodit gipertrofiya obrazovatel'nogo nadzora [What does the hypertrophy of educational supervision lead to?]. Narodnoe obrazovanie, 1(2), 77–86. Savenkov, A. I., Lvova, A. S., Vachkova, S. N., Lyubchenko, O. A. & Nikitina, E. K. (2014). A new generation of Master’s course for teachers. Pedagogical Science and Education, 19(3), 197–206. Sidorkin, A. M. (2014). Public pedagogical practice in teachers’ training. Psychological Science and Education, 19(3), 74–77. Solomin, V. P. (2014a). Deyatel'nost' universiteta v novykh usloviyakh razvitiya pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya [University activities in new conditions of development teacher education]. Universum: vestnik Gertsenovskogo universiteta, 1, 3–17. Solomin, V. P. (2014b). Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie v Rossii: poisk modelei i formatov [Pedagogical education in Russia: Search for models and formats]. Universitetskaya kniga, 3, 60–65. Solomin, V. P. (2014c). Vektory modernizatsii pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya: v preddverii institutsional'nykh izmenenii [Vectors of modernization of teacher education: On the eve of institutional changes]. Obrazovanie: tseli i perspektivy, 35, 5–15. Solomin, V. P., Goncharov, S. A., Proekt, Yu. L., Panasenko, E. A., & Efimov, S. V. (2014). Programma strategicheskogo razvitiya Gertsenovskogo universiteta: osnovnye rezul'taty i effekty realizatsii [Herzen University Strategic Development Program: Main results and implementation effects]. Vuzy - regional'noi ekonomike: sbornik dokladov otchetnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii. Natsional'nyi issledovatel'skii Tomskii politekhnicheskii un-t. Tomsk, 13–14. Solomin, V. P., Rabosh, V. A., & Gogoberidze, A. G. (2015). New model of practice-oriented teacher training in accordance with the requirements of the professional and educational standard. Pedagogical education in Russia. Teacher Education Group. (2015). Teacher education in times of change: Responding to challenges across the UK and Ireland. Policy Press. Tryapitsyna, A. P. (2013). Soderzhanie professional'noi podgotovki studentov – budushchikh uchitelei k resheniyu zadach modernizatsii obshchego obrazovaniya [The content of the professional training of students – future teachers to solve the problems of modernization of general education.]. Universum: Vestnik Gertsenovskogo universiteta, 1, 50–61.

Institutional reform in the twenty-first century  127 Valeeva, R., & Gafurov, I. (2017). Initial teacher education in Russia: Connecting practice, theory and research. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 342–360. Valeeva, R., & Kalimullin, A. (2019). Teacher education in Russia. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vesmanov, S. V., Vesmanov, D. S., Zhadko, N. V., & Akopyan, G. A. (2014). Training of teachers in a research magistracy: experience of Moscow City Pedagogical University. Psychological Science and Education, 19(3), 160–167. Zeer, E., & Simanyuk, E. (2005). Kompetentnostnyi podkhod k modernizatsii professional'nogo obrazovaniya [Competence approach to modernization vocational education.]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 4, 23–30. Zhirkova, Z. S. (2012). Pedagogicheskaya praktika studentov – podgotovka k osnovnym vidam professional'noi deyatel'nosti [Pedagogical practice of students – Preparation for basic types of professional activities]. Fundamental'nye issledovaniya, 2(6), 360–364.

5 Kazan Federal University A case study in reform Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin

Introduction Prompted by changes in the political, economic, and social life of the country, education reforms led to the development of a diversified system of teacher education in Russia. Consequently, as illustrated above in Chapter 4, two main groups of higher educational institutions that implement teacher training programmes have emerged – specialised pedagogical and non-pedagogical universities and institutes. Acknowledged as a curious phenomenon in the development of the country’s teacher education system, Kazan Federal University (KFU) has become one of the leaders among non-pedagogical universities. The University is the only higher educational institution in the post-Soviet space that received an international recognition for its reforms in the education field and was ranked among the top one hundred universities in the world in the subject area ‘Education’ by the Times Higher Education World University Rankings in 2020 and 2021. This chapter covers the prerequisites for and the emergence of the KFU as a case study in the contemporary teacher education field, caused by changes in state policy in the field of higher education. First, the chapter examines a more than 200-year history of teacher education. Then, it focuses on the characteristics of the current model of teacher education at KFU: its difference from traditional approaches, programme content, diverse ways of entering the profession, infrastructure, educational processes, and relations with employers. The chapter discusses the key factors that contributed to the efficiency of teacher training. These factors are profound interdisciplinary research in teacher education; high involvement of KFU scientists in the current international research agenda; and the initiation of major scientific events aimed at developing cooperation between Russian and foreign scholars.

Kazan Federal University and teacher education As recently as 2010, no one would have even imagined that KFU would become one of the key players in the teacher education system in Russia. The reason was that KFU used to be a typical non-pedagogical university, famous

Kazan Federal University  129 mainly for its renowned Natural Science schools. Nevertheless, yet another education reform turned over a new leaf in the University’s history, one of the country’s oldest universities that in Soviet times used to be named after Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin. In 2010, by the decision of the Government of the Russian Federation, on the premises of the former Kazan State University, a new federal university was established. According to the reform, such federal universities were created in almost every federal district (a large administrative division that includes several regions of the country) by merging several universities with the leading university. Fuelled by the synergistic effect of various resources joined together, such large federal universities were intended to become the drivers of human development in the regions. Although federal universities have had an influence over vast territories, they manifested themselves differently according to the size, pace of development, degree of stability, and particular specialisation. In the Volga Federal District, the most ambitious was the merger of seven higher educational institutions. Since 2010, the following universities have gradually merged to form KFU. These were Kazan State University, Kazan Institute of Economics and Finance, Tatar State University of Humanities and Education, the Academy of Civil Services, Elabuga State Pedagogical University, Kama State Academy of Engineering and Economics, and Kazan Institute of Russian Academy of Economics. This ensured that KFU would become one of the ten largest Russian universities with a total enrolment of about 50 thousand students (2020). Currently, KFU is a huge multidisciplinary complex that includes 18 institutes, 2 large campuses, a complex of medical clinics, engineering centres, affiliated grammar schools and many other facilities. Today, the University is one of the most vibrant and fast-developing in Russia. In the 2021 QS World University Rankings, KFU is ranked at 370 internationally and at 13 in Russia. After two pedagogical universities became part of KFU, the University unexpectedly became one of the three largest teacher education centres in the Russian Federation behind only two specialised pedagogical universities in Moscow and Saint-Petersburg. Initially, at the stage of formulating new development strategies, KFU faced many difficulties as it focused mainly on groundbreaking research in the fields of medicine, information technology, and earth sciences, rather than the field of teacher education. The latter was initially considered as a kind of a burden, or as the least important scientific and educational area in the organisational structure of the University. That was manifested in the inferior status of education scientists, difficulty in obtaining financial resources and psychological pressure at the hands of scholars from natural sciences departments. The reasons for such an arrogant attitude towards education scholars included the perception that the affiliated specialised universities were far from being in the best condition, experiencing difficulties with funding, student recruitment, low wages, and the lack of resources that further resulted in the lack of highly skilled scientists and teachers. In fact, the majority of the universities in the country faced

130  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin these problems, since the teacher education system had been on the fringes of the country’s educational policy for a long time (Valeeva & Gafurov, 2017; Valeeva & Kalimullin, 2019a, 2019b). Unfortunately, the state was unable to fully support them during the years of economic hardship, so their stagnation stretched back for many years. Further, due to their distinctive nature, pedagogical educational institutions did not have the capacity to commercialise their educational activities. That, in comparison with the departments of economy, law, and medicine, prevented them from relying on their own resources through income generation. Consequently, teacher education degrees did not attract many students’ attention in almost all higher education pedagogical institutions including Tatar State University of Humanities and Education and Elabuga State Pedagogical University. According to the undergraduate enrolment ranking, in 2011 these universities were ranked 54 and 72 respectively (among about 100 pedagogical universities in Russia). This negatively affected the universities’ income, maintenance of buildings and laboratories, and scientific research. Therefore, by the time these two pedagogical universities joined KFU, it became obvious that the solution of their problems was impossible if they continued operating according to the traditional teacher education system. The clarity of this judgement led to the search for a new and distinctive model of teacher training which would function well in the framework of a large multidisciplinary university. The new model was planned to be as versatile as possible, in contrast to the rigidity of the teacher education system that had dominated pedagogical universities for decades. Obviously, the new model did not set to destroy or replace extant approaches to teacher education. It only aimed at integrating the best international practices in the field of teacher education with the existing system of teacher education in Russia. We have seen how the problems of the traditional teacher education system were recognised at the government level, as was discussed in Chapter 4. Thus, a distinctive feature of the state policy with regard to teacher education was a grand-scale merger of pedagogical higher education institutions with other universities. Federal universities that included pedagogical universities in their structure have gradually developed several approaches towards a new teacher education system: from preserving a traditional system to developing their own models. Time has shown that the approach implemented by KFU was the most radical but it proved that it was possible to take advantage of the synergistic effect that the merger of higher educational institutions of various types resulted in.

Teacher training traditions at Kazan Federal University In 1812, eight years after the establishment of Kazan University, a Pedagogical Institute was opened on its premises. However, its existence had long been forgotten by educational historians since the University’s priorities have always centred around the natural sciences (Bulich, 1904; Ermolaev,

Kazan Federal University  131 2004; Korbut, 1902; Naguevsky, 1902). However, it is noteworthy that the University Charter of 1804 provided for teacher training in the first place. Along with Moscow and Saint-Petersburg Pedagogical Institutes, the Pedagogical Institute of Kazan Imperial University became the third educational institution of this kind in Russia and had a significant impact on the educational and cultural development of the east of the country (Vishlenkova et al., 2005; Zagoskin, 1904, 1902a, 1902b, 1902c, 1902d). While the history of the educational institution was marked by outstanding achievements of its famous graduates (distinguished scientists Nikolai Lobachevsky, Ivan Simonov, and others), it also featured a failure to grasp the importance of teacher training in a non-pedagogical university at different periods of time (Bolgarskiy, 1956; Kagan, 1948; Kandaurov, 2010; Starshinov, 2001; Valeeva & Kalimullin, 2019a, 2019b). Nevertheless, until its restructuring into pedagogical courses in 1858, the Institute trained hundreds of teachers to work in grammar schools and district schools spread across a significant part of the country, which included the Volga region, Siberia, the Urals, the Caucasus, and a number of central provinces (Amirkhanov, 2004; Naguevsky, 1902; Mikhailova, 2004; Nefedova, 2013). As a rule, in the first ten years, from 30 to 40 state-funded students were trained to become teachers. Overall, the number of students fluctuated between 40 and 50. After the Pedagogical Institute was restructured in the second half of the 19th century, its teacher education traditions were preserved and continued by pedagogical departments, pedagogical seminaries, and other teacher training institutions during the pre-revolutionary and Soviet periods of our country’s history (Ivanovskii, 1904, 1906; Koroleva, 1979). Later on, these traditions were abandoned. At the end of the 20th century, many university graduates received an additional qualification as a ‘teacher’, which allowed them to teach at universities and different types of schools. The qualification was achieved by taking an additional two or three modules on pedagogy, psychology, and didactics. However, in terms of content, real teacher training was rather limited and accounted to two-three courses in pedagogy and psychology (Iskhakova, 2002, 1999; Ivanov, 1999; Shakirov, 1999). At the same time, teacher training was successfully continued at Kazan Teachers’ Institute, founded in 1876. In 1918 the Institute was transformed into Kazan Pedagogical Institute, and in 1919, into Kazan Higher Institute of Public Education. Then, in 1922 it was renamed as the Eastern Pedagogical Institute, in 1934 as Kazan State Pedagogical Institute, and in 1994 as Kazan State Pedagogical University. Finally, in 2005, it was restructured and named Tatar State University of Humanities and Education. The University trained tens of thousands of teachers for educational institutions in the Volga, Ural, and Siberian regions. Along with that, it successfully carried out its enlightening mission educating many indigenous peoples of Russia. Elabuga State Pedagogical University was also one of the oldest regional educational institutions in the Russian Federation. Its history showcases a different line in the development of pedagogical education in Russia. In 1898, supported by private donations, the diocesan (religious) school for

132  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin women was established in Elabuga. The school also provided additional classes to train teachers for parish schools and diocesan schools. Teacher training traditions had never been abandoned in this school. Teacher Training College (seminary), Pedagogical Courses (Tatar, Russian, Mari, Votyak), Normal School, College, Teachers’ Institute (1939), and Pedagogical Institute (1953) all operated there in Soviet times. During the Second World War, some groups of scientists from Leningrad University, Voronezh University, and the USSR Academy of Sciences were relocated to Elabuga. The scholars who arrived greatly influenced the development of different scientific schools in Elabuga. Tens of thousands of teachers were trained here to work in schools all over the country. Long-established teacher training traditions, considerable scientific and pedagogical potential fuelled the transformation of the Institute into a State Pedagogical University in 2003.

Reorganisation of teacher training in a Federal University As can be seen from the above, in 2011, KFU united traditions and experiences of teacher training accumulated by three previously independent educational institutions. Their particular characteristics have created unique conditions for implementing innovative approaches in teacher training. It became apparent that the synergistic effect of combining different types of educational institutions would enable some of the issues faced by the existing teacher education system to be tackled (Gafurov, 2013). Firstly, relatively more substantial facilities and resources together with highly experienced teaching staff helped to increase the quality of the subject training of teachers, especially in the field of natural sciences. That was seamlessly supplemented by the traditional advantages of pedagogical universities, i.e. professional career guidance, substantial pedagogical, psychological, and didactic training, and readiness for morale building educational activities. All of these helped to establish a very positive pedagogical atmosphere, so important for the development of a future teacher. A large number of students not majoring in teacher training were given the opportunity to form personalised learning paths. That facilitated the introduction of various ways to enter the teaching profession. In this way, drawing from the specifics of educational institutions of different types, the KFU model has incorporated everything necessary to run high-quality teacher training programmes. Secondly, considerable financial resources were allocated to the development of infrastructure for teacher education which was possible due to the special status of federal universities given by the state policy of that time. Over the course of several years, KFU has built the most favourable environment for teacher training in Russia. It comprises not only laboratories at the Institutes of chemistry, physics, medicine, and biology but also several affiliated grammar schools, a kindergarten for children with autism spectrum disorder, a centre for advanced studies and continuing professional development, an educational television channel, various extracurricular education centres, children’s creative learning centres, and children’s summer camps.

Kazan Federal University  133 All this enables students to gain teaching competencies and professors to develop innovative teaching techniques which will be further put into practice in other educational institutions. Being one of the leading research and educational centres in the country, KFU has resources to provide student teachers with high-quality and diverse services such as affordable, modern dormitories, free access to numerous information resources (libraries, online courses, analytical databases, scientometric systems, etc.). After joining a large multidisciplinary university, specialised pedagogical universities were able to address their financial problems which, admittedly, were quite challenging for this sphere of higher education in Russia that time. The problems did not only concern aspects of the infrastructure, such as the condition of buildings, availability of modern equipment, access to information resources, and high-quality services for students. There were also the questions of competitive salaries, opportunities to attract highly qualified teachers and scientists, talented young researchers, and creating conditions for their professional development ensuring their participation in conferences, and the awarding of internships and grants. Unexpectedly, the merger of universities led to a natural competition between the teaching staff since their number was exceeding what was needed. That resulted in the gradual reduction in the number of low-skilled specialists. By contrast, most of the country’s pedagogical universities, especially regional ones, experienced a shortage of teaching staff in recent years due to the lower wages offered, the destruction of the former Soviet teacher training system, and the system of teachers’ mobility. The teachers’ mobility system meant that after obtaining the teaching degree in one region, a teacher could work anywhere in the country without passing additional qualifying examination. These universities could not afford to lose staff. Thirdly, after the merger, as noted above, KFU became one of the three largest teacher training centres in Russia. The University has evolved to be one of the few Russian universities that prepare teachers in all subjects taught at modern schools. At the initial stage of the reform, more than eight thousand students were enrolled on teacher education programmes, which amounted to 16% of all KFU students. That created excellent conditions for conducting various experiments regarding the educational process, initiating scientific endeavours and cooperation between various KFU Institutes. Today, as noted in Chapter 4, two groups of higher educational institutions that offer teacher training programs can be distinguished in Russia – pedagogical and non-pedagogical universities. KFU has become an informal leader of the latter group, thereby helping to determine the education reform agenda. Fourthly, being a large multidisciplinary university, KFU makes it possible to combine the expertise of different research fields such as teacher education, psychology, STEM, IT, medicine, philosophy, and others, in order to conduct multidisciplinary research (Gabdulchakov et al., 2016). This approach has improved the quality and impact of educational research which was previously impossible in narrowly focused pedagogical universities.

134  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin Besides, in the beginning of the 21st century, the educational sphere was considerably influenced by changes on societal, technological, and personal levels, which made comprehensive study within the framework of broad multidisciplinary research an essential requirement. Unfortunately, educational research in Russia used to be the prerogative of pedagogical and sometimes psychological sciences and was mainly conducted in a number of academic research organisations and pedagogical universities. Such research organisations were unable to carry out multidisciplinary studies due to their narrow scientific focus. The establishment of several research universities of a new type in the Russian Federation has opened up unique opportunities for educational research. Educational problems and new educational phenomena are now explored through the lens of a large number of scientific areas (including pedagogy, psychology, sociology, economics, political science, and medicine). KFU provides a striking example of such interdisciplinary interaction, having created positive conditions for the comprehensive study of educational problems. This presented completely different opportunities for effective cooperation between scientists from various scientific fields to study social, economic, demographic, cultural, and other processes in person’s lives. Fifthly, the participation of KFU in 2015–2020 in a special state programme initiated by the Government of the Russian Federation – the Russian Academic Excellence Project (Project 5-100), aimed at maximising the competitive position of a group of leading Russian universities in the global research and education market – had a serious impact on the development of the teacher education system (Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, n.d.). The majority of the universities taking part in the Project put their engagement into the development of such research areas as medicine, energy, IT, biology, and physics. It is significant that KFU became the only one out of the 21 Project participants to put forward teacher education as one of its four priority development fields. The KFU leaders considered teacher education as the most important social mission of the educational institution. Hence, new resources were allocated to the development of teacher education at KFU, which sparked researchers’ international cooperation, participation in international scientific associations, hosting reputable education conferences, publication in high-impact scientific journals, an increased number of invited foreign scientists, and implementation of joint research projects. Active international collaboration worked towards the advancement of KFU in the subject area ‘Education’ in the QS and THE World University Rankings. Such achievements can be viewed as an international recognition of the KFU teacher education system as well as the high quality of educational research conducted by KFU scientists.

A flexible system of teacher education Unlike traditional pedagogical universities, KFU developed a flexible system of teacher education that consists of three teacher training models – traditional,

Kazan Federal University  135 distributed, and integrative. Its advantages lie in the rational and full use of educational, technical, and material resources of each structural Institute of the University. The KFU campus in the city of Elabuga, the Elabuga Institute of KFU, located 200 km east of Kazan, has preserved the traditional model of teacher education. According to this model, teachers receive comprehensive training at a given specialised department (for example, the department of biology, the department of physics and mathematics, or the department of foreign languages). The Elabuga Institute has been successfully developing due to its integration into the overall system of teacher education implemented at KFU. The system provides the Elabuga Institute with the unlimited possibilities of services and resources. The Elabuga Institute offers bachelor’s degree programmes. In other words, it focuses on mass teacher training. In this way, the Elabuga Institute represents an underpinning element in the overall KFU teacher education system, while the main KFU campus in Kazan acts as the next element, offering master’s degree programs. This approach was a response to the perennial problem of major differences in the quality of educational programmes implemented in Moscow and regional universities, which were manifested in the resources and financial conditions, teacher and researcher qualifications, and the admission rates of high school graduates. In this way, a large university such as KFU has managed to create a fully functioning system of continuity and a rational allocation of resources relying on the conditions and realising the potential of structural units, which tackle specific educational tasks. Since 2011, the Elabuga Institute has received significant financial support from KFU. The financial injections were aimed at upgrading the skills of teaching staff, attracting leading scholars, equipping the laboratories, purchasing and refurbishing academic buildings, dormitories. This is an almost unseen phenomenon for regional pedagogical universities. The implemented measures have resulted in an increase in the economic stability of the Institute, a rise of research indicators, a rise in students’ average admission score in the Unified State Exam, and the growth of popularity among high-school graduates. During this time, significant facilities – new academic buildings, residence halls, a research centre for children (Research Collaboration Centre) – were acquired. In 2020, a new secondary school was opened as a platform for experimental work and practical training of students. Unlike the KFU schools for gifted children in Kazan, it was initially a rather mediocre educational institution with low learning outcomes. The affiliation with the University is intended to develop the technologies for improving the efficiency and learning outcomes in such weak schools for further replication throughout the country. The Elabuga Institute has become attractive for foreign students, who make up about 40% of all students. Young people mainly come from Central Asian countries such as Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. In the context of the ongoing integration of the countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and a growing influx of migrant workers, the

136  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin training of students from these countries is considered an important geopolitical task at the state level. Meanwhile, a new distributed model of teacher training is being realised at the main KFU campus in Kazan. Given the specific features of a large multidisciplinary university, an unconventional principle underpins the model. Depending on the number of implemented programmes, pedagogical divisions or departments were established in relevant KFU Institutes (including the Institute of Mathematics and Mechanics; Institute of Physics; Institute of Chemistry; Institute of Philology and International Communication). In line with their specialisations, the institutes run bachelor’s programmes in subjects such as mathematics, physics, geography, and biology. At the subject-specific institutes, the teaching staff are in charge of the subject matter preparation of students. Pedagogical and psychological training is carried out at the Institute of Psychology and Education which coordinates the whole system of teacher education at KFU. The areas of responsibility of all participants of the educational process are regulated by curricula. This ensures a high degree of coordination. In this regard, each relevant KFU institute is a focal point of work with teachers in relevant subject areas. As a rule, student teachers take a considerable number of courses together with students having other majors at the institutes. Future teachers have an opportunity to attend lectures given by eminent professors, to experience state-of-the-art scientific and educational laboratories, including those that simulate the educational process at school. This immersion in the subject area experienced by future teachers contributes to the development of a greater subject-related competence. This is especially important for natural science disciplines, in which equipment has a tendency towards a rapid obsolescence and requires huge economic expenditure on the acquisition of modern technology. On a centralised basis, students take pedagogical, psychological, and educational technology courses at the Institute of Psychology and Education which acts as a connecting link in the system of teacher education at the University. Recognising the significance of not only the fundamental, but also the methodological training of future teachers, the developers of this model focused on the methods of teaching subjects. They are covered at relevant institutes, as well as in the Centre for Practical Competence which is based in the Institute of Psychology and Education. The Centre has cutting-edge laboratories and model classrooms equipped with modern facilities, which are available only in the best Russian schools or planned for future installation. Alongside the traditional methods, the latest laboratory equipment, special technical tools, interactive teaching methods and technologies make it possible to simulate situations of school practice and apply the principles of problem-based learning and teamwork. Within this model, another Russian innovation – the Centre of Master’s Studies – has been successfully introduced. The Centre brought most master’s courses in teacher education under one umbrella (Baklashova & Zakirova, 2016). According to the tradition established in Russian universities, master’s programmes are usually run by various departments. To a great

Kazan Federal University  137 extent, they are dependent on the research interests of programme directors. This often leads to disunity, redundancy, dissipation of resources, and problems with enrolment on such state-funded programmes. The conservatism of this approach is accounted for by the planned state funding in the case of the vast majority of master’s courses in teacher education, which eliminates the competition and provides university teaching staff with work from year to year. This stands in sharp contrast to the practice elsewhere in much of the world where students may pay their own tuition fees and are able to choose the most interesting educational programmes with creative faculty staff. In the context of the initial combination of 23 master’s programmes, an objective assessment was carried out of their content, the demand in the labour market, the quality of implementation, and their popularity among students. Probably, the most significant innovation consisted in the elimination of a principle, established in the Soviet times, when teachers had a guaranteed teaching load. Instead, elements of competition between teachers were introduced, duplication was eliminated, a unified system of management was established, and curricula were approved. Accordingly, the course contents on the programmes can be identical up to 40% due to obligatory disciplines recommended for study by the State Educational Standards. The latter fact made it possible to concentrate the most qualified professors on the delivery of lectures for a large number of students. Often, the number of professors is insufficient to cover all courses separately. The reduction of teaching load made it possible to conduct additional classes for students, especially for those who had not taken bachelor’s courses in teacher education previously. The average length of master’s courses has been reduced to two to four years, primarily due to the focus on the needs of the regional labour market. The annual number of programmes offered, ranging from 12 to 17, enables the creation of a flexible trajectory for the development of economically sustainable programmes and the support of unpopular courses, which are in high demand in schools, for instance, on physics or mathematics teacher education. This drastically changes the recruitment mechanism for university teachers as with unpopular courses being cancelled some staff may lose the job, which makes teachers more willing to adapt. Along with that, academics upgrade their skills and design new and relevant courses for students. This approach is quite different from the tradition established in most Russian universities, where instructors almost have a lifetime guarantee for their work. There is thus a very dynamic sense of ongoing development in these programmes. At KFU, any professor can initiate the development of a new educational programme and launch it on a fee-paying basis. In the case of a successful first run, the programme will obtain state funding for the next year, thereby replacing a programme which has lost its relevance. The practice has demonstrated that the life cycle of some programmes equals their duration, while other programmes preserve stability for several years. This creates equal conditions for competition between programmes and subsequently between

138  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin academics for posts, which is a problem for most Russian universities, with the exception of the universities participating in the Project 5-100. Another benefit from the clustering of master’s courses in one Centre is the possibility of creating a flexible trajectory for students. The unification of an obligatory part of the curriculum and its concentration in the first two semesters enables students to change their majors during the studies, for example, from physics to mathematics, or from geography to educational psychology. On the one hand, this ensures a quick response to students’ educational preferences. On the other hand, it allows responsiveness to the needs of rural schools, where teachers often have to teach interrelated subjects. The third model of teacher training is described as integrative. A key point is that its implementation is possible only in a multidisciplinary university, which has a large number of bachelor’s students having non-pedagogical majors. The traditional problem of Russian students in the context of the provision of free education has always been a wrong choice of the major. The percentage of students deciding they had chosen wrongly was often quite high. An indirect proof was a large proportion of graduates who did not work in their areas of specialisation and wanted to pursue further studies. Unfortunately, the existing rules did not allow students to change their first major during the study. In relation to pedagogical universities, they even hypothetically could not offer other non-pedagogical educational programmes, since all programmes focused on teacher preparation. Non-pedagogical universities could not implement this either, as they did not have a state license for teacher training. In this regard, KFU has become one of the first universities of a new type, which had all the important prerequisites to solve this contradiction: a great number of students from different fields of study who could potentially enter the teaching profession and a wide range of certified teacher education programmes (Khusainova et al., 2016). As we have seen, this phenomenon emerged for the first time in Russia as a result of the establishment of federal and later flagship universities. At KFU, this entailed developing flexible curricula for bachelor’s students who could change their majors into a pedagogical one after the first or second year of study. The growing popularity of such trajectories is explained not only by changing educational interests of students, but also by job vacancies in the labour market. For example, a survey of KFU students majoring in astronomy revealed their anxiety about future employment, while schools were experiencing a shortage of physics and astronomy teachers. For this reason, about half of students opted for changing their majors. Additionally, within this model, students majoring in physics, chemistry, biology, and other fields of study have an opportunity not to change their majors, but to undertake various professional retraining programmes with a focus on pedagogy. As a rule, such programmes imply tuition fees, but sometimes the regional authorities provide funding when there is a shortage of teachers in certain subjects. These programmes correspond to the practice of what is sometimes called ‘lateral entry’ to the profession implemented in other countries.

Kazan Federal University  139 The work carried out provided an opportunity not only to improve the quality of teacher training but also to increase the attractiveness of teacher education programmes among graduates who choose their future occupation and students who have decided to become teachers. Traditionally, KFU is in the top 10 universities in Russia according to the student admission levels. Amid the reduction of state-funded places for teacher education programmes until 2018, the University has managed to increase the number of students through creating fee-paying places. To date, about 50 per cent of future teachers study at the University on a fee-paying basis, which is a proof of the popularity and relevance of the courses provided.

A new infrastructure for teacher education The economic hardship of the 1990s took a toll on the material and technical conditions and the infrastructure of pedagogical universities that still has not fully recovered. It is no coincidence therefore, in terms of laboratory facilities, that traditional universities lag behind modern educational institutions. These shortcomings were fully reflected in the state of the two pedagogical universities in Kazan and Elabuga that became affiliated to the KFU. Therefore, to build a new system of teacher education, it was crucial to create a modern infrastructure for teacher training. At the same time, lacking the experience of other Russian universities, KFU scholars and administrators focused primarily on the creation of conditions for high-quality teacher training. Hence, the educational infrastructure was developed based on the transformation of the most important aspects of the educational process, namely availability of laboratory equipment, organisation of teaching practice, digitalisation of education, support for professional growth of graduates, and other related matters. As a result, a unique integrated system was developed within a few years, comprising different laboratories, university schools, teacher professional development and adult education centres, a planetarium and other facilities. The new model has enhanced the fundamental training of teachers, especially in the field of natural sciences through the unhindered use of numerous laboratories at relevant KFU institutes (Institute of Chemistry, Mathematics and Mechanics, Fundamental Medicine and Biology, Physics and others). These facilities significantly improved the subject training of teachers, which was later confirmed by the feedback from employers when hiring KFU graduates. To train future teachers of technology and robotics, classes are held in engineering centres and IT parks of the University. The Engelhardt Astronomical Observatory and the planetarium are used in the preparation of physics and astronomy teachers. In addition, there are a number of simulation classrooms and laboratories that fully model the conditions of the best schools in terms of technological infrastructure. These facilities are designed to perfect teaching methods. Each university graduate should carry out absolutely all practical experiments required by the school curriculum. Before a full-course teaching practice at school, students have training

140  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin lessons with schoolchildren from the University lyceums in the laboratories. The lessons are video-recorded for further analysis with academic instructors. Some classes given by master’s students are broadcast in real time to regional schools on the special University educational channel. This tackles the problems of several rural schools, which sometimes have a shortage of natural science teachers. Furthermore, the simulation school classrooms and laboratories are used for advanced training of in-service teachers and extra-curricular work with gifted children, who prepare for various competitions, contests, and such-like (Gafurov et al., 2019). KFU is the only Russian university which has three secondary schools in its structure. These are: Lobachevsky grammar school with a focus on physics and mathematics; the IT boarding grammar school; and a secondary school under the patronage of the Elabuga Institute of KFU. As mentioned above, the last of these was included in the university structure as an experiment to improve the effectiveness of large schools with low educational outcomes. Teachers in the university schools are KFU staff members. They have a higher socio-economic status and greater opportunities for career development as compared to colleagues from ordinary schools. As a rule, schoolchildren have classes in the laboratories of relevant university institutes once a week. Moreover, they have unlimited access to the library and other services. University professors are involved in their training. Master’s students majoring in pedagogy act as tutors. Students majoring in psychology work as tutors in the IT grammar school which provides schoolchildren with an individualised approach. A considerable proportion of these schoolchildren later become KFU students. There is a specific ‘social ladder’ for gifted schoolchildren who study free of charge. Due to the university resources, integrated in the school educational process, Lobachevsky and IT grammar schools demonstrate significant educational achievements, manifested in award-winning places in various competitions, and high scores in the school-leaving examination (Unified State Exam). Annually, they are ranked among the top 100 schools in Russia out of over 40,000 educational institutions. The availability of KFU’s own schools has made it possible to develop new approaches to the organisation of student teaching practice. The unified management system has opened up opportunities for experiments that are extremely difficult for ordinary schools due to institutional disunity. The admission of students to grammar schools was considerably facilitated, ranging from introductory school experience to working as teaching assistants in their senior years. Teaching practice helps students to master different roles and analyse situations for future work with both talented children and pupils with low educational results, such as different social deviations, that may be experienced at the University School in Elabuga (Baklashova et al., 2020). Alongside solving educational tasks, the university schools are the basis of research work and platforms for testing new technologies (Gabdulkhakov, 2018). A fairly large percentage of school teachers have PhD degrees. Some teachers are pursuing postgraduate studies, combining professional activity

Kazan Federal University  141 with research work. In turn, some academic instructors combine their work at the university with teaching at schools. In 2021, a kindergarten for children with autism spectrum disorder will be operating in the structure of KFU. The kindergarten sets educational and research goals. Not only educators, psychologists, speech pathologists, but also medical workers, physiologists, geneticists, pharmacologists cooperate in the framework of interdisciplinary projects aimed at addressing different issues related to autism. In view of this, the entire complex of educational institutions for preschool, primary, and secondary education is considered: • as fully integrated into the University structure for practical training of students; • as a platform for research on educational technologies, child psychology and socialisation, as well as for the introduction of developments in educational practice. This approach strengthens a research focus of teacher education, which has not been sufficiently represented in traditional pedagogical universities. KFU is one of the few Russian universities which has a fully functioning system of continuing teacher education (Kalimullin, 2014a, 2014b). The University structure includes a special unit designed to support the professional growth of teachers throughout their career, the Volga Region Centre for Advanced Training and Professional Retraining. Annually, regional authorities finance the training of 7,000–10,000 in-service teachers who take the courses offered by the Centre. In Russian regions, these functions are traditionally fulfilled by regional Institutes of Education Development (IED), which have a minimum number of teaching staff and are forced to hire educators from geographically adjacent higher education institutions. In this case, the KFU model again demonstrates the advantages of a large university, when its own faculty staff are involved in order to upgrade the skills of teachers, as well as providing the necessary laboratories and schools for organising practical courses. This is quite a rare phenomenon in modern teacher education in Russia. KFU programmes cover up to 75% of teachers in the region and serve as a feedback mechanism to identify the most common difficulties in teaching and also to tailor the initial process of training students. In recent decades, an administrative disconnection among the main actors of the education system became an unsolvable problem. While pedagogical universities were under the control of federal authorities, teachers were under the supervision of regional authorities. This often created inconsistency between teacher training standards and real teaching practice (Panfilov et al., 2015). As an experiment, KFU has built a new interaction system with the Regional Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Tatarstan, which is the main employer of graduates of teacher training programmes. Upon mutual agreement, the Coordination Council on Teacher Education in the Republic of Tatarstan was established. The Council’s duties included

142  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin the following: coordination of the elective courses of the academic programmes, employer-sponsored education, research work in schools in the Republic of Tatarstan, graduates’ certification, training of teachers to work in ethnic community schools, and graduate employability. The Regional Ministry advised universities on the opening of the most in-demand teacher training programmes, establishing grants for novice teachers, and funding of further training to prepare teachers to work in bilingual schools. Today, approximately 400 undergraduate student teachers studying at KFU are locally funded. Furthermore, these students receive a monthly maintenance stipend of 15,000 roubles, which is higher than an average state-funded stipend. In view of the fact that KFU has two IT Institutes, digital teacher training programmes have been improved. Online courses on education and psychology were developed with the aid of IT specialists. The specialised Centre of Digital Educational Technologies ‘EduTech’ was opened at KFU in 2019. The Centre consists of laboratories for the design of digital educational environments, for the development of online courses on teacher education, and a distance learning laboratory. Leading Russian and international practices of digital education are studied and analysed. In addition, the centre has developments in hardware and software solutions for education from large Russian and foreign manufactures, which are applicable for teacher training and continuing professional development. Nearly all institutes have video laboratories aimed at the development of online courses, and Digital Transformation Centres. The development of such infrastructure creates opportunities for researchers working on issues related to the digital transformation of education. Thus, during the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, the University was able to quickly re-organise the effective educational process by promptly and smoothly switching over to distance learning in March 2020. This has proved the University policy to be effective in terms of digitalisation of education. By this time, some blended teacher training programmes had already been run which is how teachers and students had sufficient competencies to move very rapidly to distance teaching and learning. Most teaching and learning was done on the Microsoft Teams platform. Teachers used their own digital educational resources, previously developed for the Moodle platform, on the Microsoft Teams platform. At the same time, technical and substantive aspects of this process needed to be accelerated. This is very important for the training of modern teachers because they will need to integrate digital technologies into a classroom. Therefore, the University aspired to develop digital resources for school education. This way, the database of innovative multimedia educational resources on psychology was created. Also, the tool ‘Educational environment 21st century +’ was launched to be broadly used when developing multimedia educational resources. Interactive textbooks of psychology (Grades 7-11) and astronomy (basic and advanced levels) along with the multimedia resource ‘Geography From Space’ are being designed.

Kazan Federal University  143

The Russian model of research-based teacher education Currently, as we have seen, Kazan Federal University is one of the few Russian universities implementing teacher training programmes at all levels and preparing teachers of all school disciplines. KFU is one of the three largest centres of teacher education in Russia. In 2020, approximately ten thousand students were enrolled in teacher education programmes. This amounted to 18 per cent of all KFU students. Furthermore, more than ten thousand in-service teachers attend continuing professional development courses every year. In this way, KFU has managed to create a practical system of lifelong learning for teachers. The University plays a key role in the initial teacher training in the region and provides support throughout the professional career. For example, 1975 teachers and psychologists graduated from the University in 2020 (1587 bachelor’s students and 488 master’s students). Although the teacher education field used to be seen as an unsuccessful domain within the University, it has now evolved into an economically stable and highly regarded university unit. The Russian Academy of Education, a leading scientific organisation in the field of education in Russia, highly praised the research and educational potential of KFU. In 2016, the organisation opened a designated research centre, The Volga Region Research Centre of Russian Academy of Education, within KFU. This centre coordinates research activity in the Volga ­Federal Region. In 2019, three new laboratories were opened within this centre: ‘Digital Educational Solutions’, ‘Cognitive Assessment in Education’, and ‘Education Management’. This organisational structure allowed for the consolidation of resources and for thematically combined research in the education domain conducted by scientists from different fields. The example of KFU showed that non-pedagogical universities can steadily improve the status of educational research, despite its initial low status. This has gradually resulted in the promising transformation of research activity in cooperation with different scientific fields. Worldwide leading universities have shown the same experience when the multidisciplinary approach provides the opportunities to reconsider scientific values in education and counters the devaluation of educational research. This gives a further impetus to educational research in physics, engineering, medicine, and other vocational training fields. Such an approach helps to move beyond traditional research schools and to conduct new integrated research projects in the education field. For this reason, this has created a unique opportunity to consolidate experience, a range of research tools, and particular characteristics of different sciences to ensure the multidimensional approach to education research (Kalimullin, 2014a, 2014b).

International collaboration and participation in major projects KFU teachers’ commitment to take part in international collaboration and learn the best practices of leading international universities contributed to a successful implementation of the KFU model of teacher education.

144  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, the traditional teacher education system showed a degree of conservatism. Teacher training in some countries is still quite an isolated sphere focused on the solution of local issues. In Russia, this problem was escalated because of historical factors. The Soviet ideology was primarily based on the opposition between the socialist values and Western capitalism. Meanwhile, in the last decades, it became impossible to deny the influence of globalisation on the development of education in Russia which led to some important changes. The Bologna process and other international movements for cooperation in the field of education did not have a sufficient impact to trigger the internationalisation of the whole system of teacher education in Russia (except for three-tier higher education system). In this context, the most effective examples are the cases of different universities, especially those participating in the Project 5-100. Kazan Federal University achieved the leading results because, as was already mentioned, the University set teacher training as a high-priority area for development and the social mission. The University also aimed at competitive growth of teacher education in the international context. To achieve the teacher education goals set by the KFU leaders, a Strategic Academic Unit (SAU), called ‘The 21st-Century Teacher’, was established. The unit started competing with other areas for development such as medicine and astrophysics for resources in terms of research funding. A series of research projects, as a part of the SAU work, was carried out by the teaching staff which resulted in attracting further funding. In addition, researchers actively invited international scholars from different universities for collaboration on research projects. Therefore, there was a rise in the number of studies and research papers in international journals, which are indexed in the abstract and citation databases Scopus and Web of Science. Essentially, KFU became a distinctive higher education organisation, which presents its own research results to the international education research community. Today, KFU is the Russian leader in terms of publication activities in Scopus (according to a scientometric system Scival). Although the University was not previously associated with achievements in the subject area ‘Education’, it gradually became internationally well known. In 2017, KFU was included in the top-300 universities of QS World University Rankings. In 2020, KFU improved its position in the ranking, being placed in the top 201-250. In the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE), KFU demonstrated better results in the subject ‘Education’. In 2019, the University was included in the top-125, in 2020, it achieved 94th place and in 2021, it took 90th place. This is the best rating in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Commonwealth of Independent States. Furthermore, only two Russian universities (Lomonosov Moscow State University and Kazan Federal University) are presented in the two international university rankings by subject ‘Education’. This means they comply with a wide range of education and scientific indicators, considered by experts. Research is the key indicator of improvement in the leading international rankings. It includes international reputation, the quantity and quality of

Kazan Federal University  145 publications, citation indices, and international collaborations. In this regard, despite the apparent accomplishments of Russian educational science (including the continuing worldwide influence of major psychologists such as Vygotsky), it is important to recognise its currently relatively poor involvement in the international research agenda, with an excessive focus on theory, insufficient research instruments, and multidisciplinary collaboration. It is for these reasons that the question of the importance of research in the education field became topical (Valeeva & Kalimullin, 2019a, 2019b). It is not a coincidence that some countries, including Russia, tended to be prejudiced about vague and unclear education research as they ‘usually collect dust on library shelves’ or make little contribution to practice. Currently, KFU is, in fact, the only Russian university, which consistently and on a large scale presents Russian education research to the world scientific community. KFU is included in many leading international education research associations. KFU became the most active and sometimes the only representative of Russia at the leading international conferences (WERA, AERA, EERA, BERA, ISATT1), demonstrating the Russian experience of teacher education transformation. It is commonly known that such conferences have selective requirements and all submissions go through rigorous expert evaluations. Therefore, KFU scholars had to change their inner and professional values after the first unsuccessful submissions. They realised that their subject areas, validity, and research approaches are different from the internationally accepted ones. As a result, in recent years, the research group from KFU attending some of these international conferences is one of the largest from non-English-speaking universities in the world. Research carried out by KFU scientists was highly commended by the international education community. The University was positively evaluated in terms of citation impact and publications. KFU was also included in the top-100 based on these criteria. KFU is superior to other Russian universities with regard to criteria such as field-weighted citation, the citation impact of publications, and the h-index and it nearly achieved the results of the peer universities such as the University of Helsinki and the University of Rochester. Recently a number of chapters in international comparative monographs, published by leading international publishers, increased. For instance, Professor Roza Valeeva and Professor Aydar Kalimullin prepared the following chapters: ‘Teacher Education in Russia’ for the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education and ‘Learning To Teach In Russia: A Review of Policy and Empirical Research’ for an edited monograph, ‘Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Teacher Education: a Cross-National Study’, published by Bloomsbury (Valeeva & Kalimullin, 2019b; Valeeva & Kalimullin, 2019a). The University's internationalisation strategy activated the participation in national projects, dedicated to the transformation of teacher education. Close collaboration with foreign scientists and knowledge of world problems and trends allowed KFU to become one of the most high-profile participants of the Teacher Training Improvement Programme in Russia (2014–2017). In 2015–2020, the leading national science foundations and private companies

146  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin provided the University with three times more funding for research in the education field compared with five previous years. As a result of the growing reputation of KFU, private companies (such as Yandex and MTS) continue to fund research and consultancy activity. The internationalisation strategy is also implemented by means of an academic journal ‘Education and Self-Development’, which is indexed in Scopus since 2018. Two co-editors, Roza Valeeva from Russia and Nick Rushby from the UK, develop the journal’s vision. The journal is a bilingual publication (English and Russian). Furthermore, ‘Education and Self-Development’ aims both to promote international research to Russian readers and local research to international readers.

The International Forum on Teacher Education In the USSR, we have seen that teacher training was quite politicised (Chapter 4). During Soviet times, there was restricted collaboration between Russian and foreign scientists, other than within the Communist Bloc. As a result, Russian scholars were only familiar with a limited number of foreign research works and vice versa. For example, for historical reasons, the research work of Lev Vygotsky was the most well known internationally in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. However, there were many other significant studies conducted by different Russian scientists in the education field (such as Sergei Rubinstein, Isaak Lerner, Vasily Davydov, and Mirza Makhmutov). Unfortunately, the low international mobility of Russian scientists continued into modern times because of economic constraints. The constraints did not allow researchers to widely participate in international research, projects, and conferences organised around the world. A low level of language training in Russian schools and universities was often a major barrier. The situation slightly improved since the advent of the Internet, because young and middle-aged researchers started actively to make use of it. Nevertheless, this did not create opportunities to present their research results to the education research community at traditional face-to-face conferences. This approach did not allow national pedagogical science to quickly follow the global international trends or to anticipate common problems (educational inequality, digitalisation, cyber addiction, for example), unaddressed during the Soviet period and emerging in Russian society. Until recently, major international conferences on teacher education with active participation of scholars from leading universities, talking about current educational research trends, did not take place in Russia. Scientific communication usually took place within the country and rarely in the Russian-speaking CIS countries. This did not allow for the organisation of comprehensive scientific exchange among scientists from different countries to cover a variety of studies on teacher education. The orientation of KFU scholars towards international collaboration and their regular participation in prestigious global conferences (ATEE, WERA,

Kazan Federal University  147 AERA, EERA/ECER, BERA, ISATT, and others) led to the development of the University’s own research platform. In 2015 the First International Forum on Teacher Education (IFTE-2015) was conducted in the University. Approximately 100 people took part in it, including only seven foreign colleagues. Nevertheless, the ambitious IFTE organising committee was able to raise its significance, considering a wide range of themes. Thereafter, IFTE became one of the largest Russian scientific events in teacher education. For example, more than 600 scientists from 140 Russian and 75 international universities participated in Fifth International Forum on Teacher Education (IFTE-2019). In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sixth International Forum on Teacher Education (IFTE-2020) was transformed into a virtual event. Over a period of three months, organisers put a lot of effort into organising the forum as a virtual event, using the Microsoft Teams platform through a partnership with Microsoft. More than 860 participants from 275 universities, scientific and educational organisations (including 79 international ones) registered for the Forum. Seventeen keynote reports were made by renowned scientists from leading universities of the UK, the USA, Ireland, Australia, Russia, and elsewhere. The Forum’s partners were the Russian Academy of Education and a number of international research associations. During ten days, 146 online sessions were organised, including virtual symposia, round tables, workshops, and special interest group sessions. According to Microsoft statistics, more than 32 thousand people attended virtual sessions, having the opportunity to discuss the problems of teacher education. The Forum’s participants commented that the organisation of the virtual conference within the planned time period demonstrated the substantial potential of KFU in terms of digital (distance) technologies. At the same time, many other conferences were postponed or cancelled. As a result, IFTE is described as a special science-based bridge between Russian and international researchers in the fields of education and psychology. On the one hand, IFTE offers the opportunity to show the results of international research and on the other hand, to demonstrate the research work of the Russian scholars to the world community. For KFU researchers, this is also the opportunity to receive expert opinion about different areas of work, aiming to transform teacher education. We can see how the current modernisation processes in KFU have revealed the potential of the new university model of teacher education. The synergistic effects have allowed for the deep transformation of teacher training and it has become one of the most successful sectors in this large multidisciplinary university. Research and educational results, financial indicators, local demand, feedback from employers, and instructional support for teachers from different KFU Institutes have greatly improved the respect shown towards the teaching profession. New educational technologies, innovative organisational learning design, motivational methods, and teachers’ professional improvement, implemented at university, are of practical and applied significance.

148  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin

Conclusion The KFU case showed the effectiveness of local transformations within one higher education institution. This point is proved by the development of a unique (for Russia) university model of teacher training that complements the traditional system applied by pedagogical universities. In the context of general state reforms in higher education, the KFU team of administrators, researchers, and practitioners identified this area as one of the top educational, research, and social priorities in the university development plan. This decision made it possible to attract enormous resources of the multidisciplinary university, different federal and regional projects, and private investments in teacher education. As a result, such an integrated approach has provided the opportunity to expand the content and modes of teacher training, build the modern education and research infrastructure, create conditions, services, the digital environment, and a system for supporting teachers throughout their professional career, which meet the best international practices. The focus of Kazan scholars on the international cooperation played a key role in solving issues that have many common features in light of global challenges in education. This was a real breakthrough amid the traditional conservatism of teacher education, demonstrating the impossibility of its further development without best international practices. In turn, it is difficult to predict the prospects for disseminating the KFU case to other Russian universities. Despite a great number of non-­ pedagogical higher education institutions in Russia that implement teacher education programmes, they represent a heterogeneous mass of traditional, engineering, humanities, and private universities and institutes. For many reasons, it is not possible to introduce the best practices of KFU in these institutions. Along with that, it is not properly supported at the federal level. At the same time, the experience of KFU is opposed, to some extent, to the traditional system adopted by pedagogical universities. However, it cannot be denied that, unlike the latter, KFU managed to accomplish the important modern teacher training trends, such as research-oriented teacher education, integration of science and the learning process, and a specific re-organisation of learning processes (a more democratic relationship between a teacher and a student, incorporating students in research from the beginning, a variety of educational trajectories). These were the core principles in the development of the teacher education model in KFU. We hope that this local experience will be relevant and scaled up across the country. Clearly, large university hubs can and should significantly contribute to the improvement of quantitative and qualitative indicators of teacher education. As a result, research and development, realisation and implementation, and expert evaluation of effective innovations, including those demonstrated by KFU, contribute to the solution of global, national, and local problems, which are particularly acute in today’s world.

Kazan Federal University  149

Note 1 WERA: World Education Research Association; AERA: American Educational Research Association; EERA: European Educational Research Association; BERA: British Educational Research Association); ISATT: International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching.

References Amirkhanov, R.U. (2004). Istoriya Kazani v dokumentakh i materialakh. XX vek [History of Kazan in documents and materials. XX century]. Magariff. Baklashova, T. A., & Zakirova, V. G. (2016). Features of designing job training program: Master course in teacher education. Kazanskiy pedagogicheskiy jurnal, 6(119), 82–85. Baklashova, T. A., Skobeltsyna, E. G., & Galishnikova, E. M. (2020). Modification of practical training programs in pedagogical master courses: In pursuit of professional development. In I. R. Gafurov, A. M. Kalimullin, R. A. Valeeva, & N. Rushby (Eds.), Developing teacher competences: Key issues and values (pp. 161– 182). Nova Publishers. Bolgarskiy, B. V. (1956). Kazanskaia shkola matematicheskogo obrazovaniya (V kharakteristikah ee glavneyshih detalei) [Kazan School of Mathematical Education (In the characteristics of its main figures)] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Kazan State University. Bulich, H. H. (1904). Iz pervykh let Kazanskogo universiteta (1805–1819): Rasskazy po arkhivnym dokumentam [From the early years of Kazan University (1805– 1819): Accounts from archival documents]. Typ. I.N. Skorokhodova. Ermolaev, I. P. (2004). Istoriya Kazanskogo universiteta. 1804–2004 [History of Kazan University. 1804–2004]. Tipo-lit. Imp. un-ta. Gabdulchakov, V. F., Kusainov, A. K., Kalimullin, A. M. (2016). Education reform at the science university and the new strategy for training science teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(3), 163–172. Gabdulkhakov, V. F. (2018). Menter-tekhnologii podgotovki uchiteley [Mentertechnologies for teacher training]. https://kpfu.ru//staff_files/F1793848058/ menter.pdf Gafurov, I. R. (2013). Pedagogical education at Kazan Federal University. Universum: Bulletin of Gertsen University, 2, 19–24. Gafurov, I. R., Kalimullin, A. M., Gabdulkhakov, V. F., Grigorieva, S. G., Krivonozhkina, E. G., Zakirova, G. S., Shishova, E. O., Sakhieva, R. G., Khusainova, R. M., Kalatskaya, N. N., Drozdikova-Zaripova, A. R. (2019). Tekhnologii podgotovki uchiteley v universitete [Teacher training technologies at the university]. Kazan Federal University. Iskhakova, P. P. (2002). Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye v Kazanskoy gubernii vo vtoroy polovine 19-nach.20 vv. [Pedagogical education in the Kazan province in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries] [Doctoral dissertation, Russian Academy of Education, Institute of Secondary Vocational Education]. https:// www.dissercat.com/content/pedagogicheskoe-obrazovanie-v-kazanskoi-gubernii-vo-vtoroi-polovine-khikh-nachale-khkh-vv Iskhakova, P. P. (1999). Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye v poreformennoy Rossii: Kazanskaya guberniya [Pedagogical education in post-reform Russia: Kazan region]. Kazan State Pedagogical University.

150  Ilshat Gafurov and Aydar Kalimullin Ivanov, A. E. (1999). Diskussiya o problemakh vysshego pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya v Rossii na rubezhe XIX-XX vekov [Discussion about the problems of higher pedagogical education in Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries]. Pedagogika, 6, 83–91. Ivanovskii, V. N. (1904). O prepodavanii pedagogiki [About teaching pedagogy]. Tipo-lit. Imp. un-ta. Ivanovskii, V. N. (1906). O prepodavanii pedagogiki v universitetakh [About teaching pedagogy at universities]. Vestnik vospitaniya, 7, 112. Kalimullin, A. M. (2014a). Processes of reforming teacher training in modern Russia (experience of the Kazan federal university). American Journal of Applied Sciences, 11(8), 1365–1368. Kalimullin, A. M. (2014b). Improvement of teachers’ qualification at Kazan federal university. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(4), 447–450. Kagan, V. F. (1948). Lobachevsky [Lobachevsky]. Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Kandaurov, I. N. (2010). Issledovaniye pedagogicheskogo naslediya i deyatel'nosti N.I. Lobachevskogo na osnove sistemnogo podkhoda [N.I. Lobachevsky’s pedagogical heritage and activities research on the basis of a systematic approach] [Doctoral dissertation, Saint Petersburg State University]. https://www.dissercat.com/content/ issledovanie-pedagogicheskogo-naslediya-i-deyatelnosti-ni-lobachevskogo-na-osnove-sistemnogo Khusainova, R. M., Afanasyev, P. N., Novik, N. N., Chirkina, S. E., Khairutdinova, M. R., Samsonova, V. A., & Lopukhova, O. G. (2016). Razrabotka modeli professional'noy perepodgotovki po napravleniyu «Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye» v federal'nom universitete [Continuous professional development in "Teacher education" at the federal university]. Education and Self-development, 2(48), 29–46. Korbut, M. K. (1902). Kazanskii gosudarstvenii universitet im. V.I. Ul'yanovaLenina za 125 let [Kazan State University named after V.I. Ulyanov-Lenin for 125 years] [Doctoral dissertation, Kazan Federal University]. https://www.dissercat. com/content/istorik-mk-korbut-1899-1937-gg/read Koroleva, G. I. (1979). Podgotovka uchitelya v Kazanskom universitete v dorevolyutsionnyy period (1804–1917) [Preparation of the teacher at the Kazan University in post-revolutionary Russia (1804–1917)] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Kazan State University. Mikhailova, S. M. (2004). Kazan University leads regional educational environment. Magariff, 7, 64–66. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. (n.d.). Russian Academic Excellence Project. https://5top100.ru/en/ Naguevsky, D. I. (1902). [Professor F. K. Bronner, his diary and correspondence 1758–1850]. Type-litogr. Imp. Kazan University. Nefedova, M. V. (2013). Stanovleniye i razvitiye pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya v Kazanskom Imperatorskom universitete: 1804 - 1917 gg. [Formation and development of pedagogical education in the Kazan Imperial University: (1804–1917)] [Doctoral dissertation, Kazan Federal University]. https://www.dissercat.com/ content/stanovlenie-i-razvitie-pedagogicheskogo-obrazovaniya-v-kazanskom-imperatorskom-universitetePanfilov, A. N., Panfilova, V. M., & Vinogradov, V. L. (2015). Practice-oriented teaching training based on the networking of educational organizations that implement programs of higher education and basic education. Innovative Science, 6, 234–238.

Kazan Federal University  151 Shakirov, R. V. (1999). Kazanskaya pedagogicheskaya shkola vo vtoroy polovine XX veka [Kazan pedagogical school in the second half of the XX century]. Matbugat Yorty. Starshinov, N. I. (2001). Organizatsionno-pedagogicheskaya, deyatel'nost' i pedagogicheskiye vzglyady N.I.Lobachevskogo [Organizational and pedagogical, activities and pedagogical views of N.I. Lobachevsky] [Doctoral dissertation, Kazan State University]. http://www.dslib.net/obw-pedagogika/organizacionno-pedagogicheskaja-dejatelnost-i-pedagogicheskie-vzgljady-n-i.html Valeeva, R., & Gafurov, I. (2017). Initial teacher education in Russia: Connecting practice, theory and research. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 342–360. Valeeva, R. A., & Kalimullin, A. M. (2019a). Learning to teach in Russia: A review of policy and empirical research. In M. T. Tatto & I. Menter (Eds.) Knowledge, policy and practice in teacher education: A cross-national study (pp. 193–213). London: Bloomsbury. https://books.google.ru/ books?id=DsqFDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru#v=onepage&q&f=false Valeeva, R., & Kalimullin, A. (2019b). Teacher education in Russia. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190264093.013.446 Vishlenkova, E. A., Malysheva, S. Yu., & Salnikova, A. A. (2005). Terra Universitatis. Dva veka universitetskoy kul'tury v Kazani [Terra Universitatis: Two centuries of university culture in Kazan]. Kazan Federal University. Zagoskin, N. P. (1904). Biograficheskiy slovar' professorov i prepodavatele Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo universiteta: Za sto let (1804–1904) [Biographical dictionary of Professors and Teachers of the Imperial Kazan University for the hundred years (1804–1904)]. Type-litogr. Imp. Kazan University. Zagoskin, N. P. (1902a). Istoriya Imperatorskago kazanskago universiteta za pervyye sto let yego sushchestvovaniya, 1804–1904 [History of the Imperial Kazan University for the first hundred years of its existence, 1804–1904] Part 1. Type-litogr. Imp. Kazan University. Zagoskin, N. P. (1902b). Istoriya Imperatorskago kazanskago universiteta za pervyye sto let yego sushchestvovaniya, 1804–1904 [History of the Imperial Kazan University for the first hundred years of its existence, 1804–1904] Part 2. Type-litogr. Imp. Kazan University. Zagoskin, N. P. (1902c). Istoriya Imperatorskago kazanskago universiteta za pervyye sto let yego sushchestvovaniya, 1804–1904 [History of the Imperial Kazan University for the first hundred years of its existence, 1804–1904] Part 3. Type-litogr. Imp. Kazan University. Zagoskin, N. P. (1902d). Istoriya Imperatorskago kazanskago universiteta za pervyye sto let yego sushchestvovaniya, 1804–1904 [History of the Imperial Kazan University for the first hundred years of its existence, 1804–1904] Part 4. Type-litogr. Imp. Kazan University.

6 The modernisation of Teacher Education Project A case of vernacular globalisation Elena Revyakina

Introduction It has been argued that we are living in an era of ‘policy epidemic’ (Levin, 1998) and ‘global education reform movement(s)’ (Sahlberg, 2011). These drive convergence around globalised solutions to yet local problems. Indeed, there is so much interconnectedness evident in policy-work, that it seems we are about to enter an illusive ‘sameness’ globally. In Europe and in Russia, a major policy project on teacher education reform has been launched framing teacher education as a ‘policy problem’ (Cochran-Smith, 2005). The political interest has been frequently linked to the issues of ‘quality’, understanding of long-term social challenges, adjusting to the digital era and competing in the global, knowledge-based economy (European Commission/EACEA/ Eurydice, 2015). In essence, the recent teacher education reform movement can be described as a paradigm shift to competence-based professional training, module-based educational programmes, aligned with the basic school legislation in force, and an increased focus on using information communication technologies. Globally, there is also a strong emphasis on management by learning outcomes of teacher education defined as a series of standards, which largely challenges traditional ways of thinking about teacher education (Atard-Tonna & Madalinska-Michalak, 2018). Yet, the national and local settings are unique. So is the ‘national’ reflexivity (Popkewitz, 1996) about how the globalised reform ideas are to be realised, and the ways in which national policy actors seek to mediate the local. In Russia, in a time of an over-riding emphasis on policy-making for economic competitiveness, teacher education became a particular focus for state intervention as discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. The scale of the on-going teacher education reform is unprecedented. The whole-scale transformations – framed in terms of ‘modernisation’ and ‘institutional change’ – aimed to target national teacher education policy and long-standing institutional practices. A chosen approach to policy-making is remarkably novel and experimental for the field of teacher education. The process turned the landscape of teacher education in Russia into a ‘living laboratory’ of teacher education reform, strikingly placed within the globalised neoliberal education reform

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  153 movement, emerging cultures of accountability and control, and a shift to competitive knowledge-based economy. Importantly, the ‘modernisation’ of Higher Teacher Education cannot be considered outside the context of the general legislative changes in Russian higher education, and in particular the process of its internationalisation (even Europeanisation) – including the process of aligning the system of higher education along the Bologna principles and the emerging National Qualifications Framework (largely driven by the EU-led European Qualifications Framework). In this, the role of international organisations and global policy entrepreneurs have been recognised in promoting certain concepts (CochranSmith, 2016), and ideas (Aydarova, 2014; Gounko, 2008; Revyakina & Galvin, 2018; Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008; Smolentseva, 2017). The ideas, often associated with neoliberal ideology, started increasingly to shape aspirations for educational reforms and re-contextualise teacher education in particular as an element of economic policy. Thus, throughout this chapter, I explore a radical policy-action set within the unique context of on-going Russian Higher Teacher Education reform characterised by a particular internationalisation of ideas on the one hand, however influenced by deeply embedded cultures and traditions, the historical past, and the local situation on the other. The focus is on the process of policy-led change – more exactly on the process of vernacular globalisation (Rizvi & Lingard 2010, p. 65) – through a particular definition of policy as discursive strategies, discourse that forms and re-forms social actors’ positions, identities, and activities (Ball, 2015; Gee, 2012), and impregnates a ‘whole set-up’ (Veyne, 2010) of laws, regulations, practices, and knowledge (Foucault’s ‘dispositif’). The structure of the chapter is as follows. The central focus is on accounting for the construction of a certain discursive context for change as then consolidated through a four-year, federally funded, policy experimentation in the area, namely the Modernisation of Teacher Education Project (MoTEP), 2014–2017. First, the chapter explores the crucial and formative role played in the reform processes by policy-work derived from globalised discourses of reform emerging from collective, supranational institutional actors. At the same time, it foregrounds the roles of individual and collective agency among academics in their search for a vision for a ‘new teacher education model’, and more equitable professionalising arrangements and intra-institutional cooperation. Next, it unpacks the policy mechanisms used to initiate, spread, and sustain deep-set reform. Finally, it acknowledges the significance of the local particularities of policymaking and policy enactment – particularly the wider socio-political context, institutional cultures, the legacy of the Soviet past, and local agentic action in the localisation of certain policy ideas. Essentially, the present chapter traces the particular ways in which globalised discourses are vernacularised locally and find their way into policy and actions at the level of individual teacher educators and their institutions in contemporary and recent Russia.

154  Elena Revyakina

Theoretical and analytical framework The present analysis of the Higher Teacher Education ‘modernisation’ (2014–2017) draws in particular on the concepts of ‘vernacular globalisation’ (Appadurai, 1996) and ‘glocalisation’ (Robertson, 1995). These are used to consider ways in which developments within the Higher Teacher Education field were mediated by both globalised discourses of higher education reform and local institutional cultures and histories. A valuable key to understand why a policy-led change takes its unique trajectory is an immanent and discursive perspective. This takes the assumption that a special attention should be given to the particularity of the situation (Stahl, 2013), to the issues of pre-contextualisation and discursive shifts (Krzyżanowski, 2011; Reisigl & Wodak, 2016), and to the role of embedded institutional norms and agentic actions afforded or constrained by these (Krzyżanowski, 2011). The chapter addresses the complexity of the context by drawing on a range of research materials from different sources and actors. The dataset for the present research consists of documentary materials, interviews, and observations of 'discursive events’ – the useful concept to consider the discursive (hence, historical, ideological, cultural, situational, and agentic) practices – and was created following the criteria aligned with Discourse Historical Approach (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). It includes related federal policy documents [n = 16]; audio-visual recordings of meetings [n = 4] of the involved working group and coalition of academic, professional, and political actors with an attention to statements made by key actors and interactions between them; and interviews [n = 9] with academics representing five Higher Education Institutions actively involved in the process of policy-led change – chosen through purposive sampling. The documentary data were analysed first and were taken into consideration in preparation for the interviews. The official documents and reports were analysed thematically to systematise the data and diachronically to explore the conceptual change. They also served as a background information to explore the broader context and legitimation for change. The transcripts of observations and interviews were analysed following two cycles of coding based on procedures and protocols taken from Saldaña (2015).

The context of ‘New Teacher Education’ policy production: intermingling of the global and local As we have seen in earlier chapters, over the last two decades, the Russian educational system has seen deep and fundamental changes, marked by the process of ‘permanent’ (Asmolov, 2017) top-down modernisation. The changes have been characterised by ‘intermingling of global, distant and local logics’ (Amin, 1997, p. 133), and signified a shift towards globalised, neoliberal values (Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008; Gurova, 2018; Robertson, 2012). Under the pressure from multilateral institutions (Gounko & Smale, 2007),

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  155 and the process of internationalisation (Revyakina & Galvin, 2018), Russian legislation on education began to change. This shift reflects increasing priority being given to market-based relationships, the rational choice-making individual, cuts in public funding, performance-based accountability, and the emphasis on the role of higher education in building a competitive knowledge-based economy (Smolentseva, 2017). Indeed, the knowledge-based economy was used as a warrant for re-contextualisation of education in terms of the human capital formation – which is considered in the context of its compliance with the requirements of the innovative economy and labour market needs (ibid). The economic imperatives have increasingly ‘colonised’ (Ball, 1998) education policy. The key national policy documents (GD, 2008, 2012, 2016; Law, 2012) required the redefinition of what is expected from education and the ‘quality’ of education, more exclusively promoting the economic role of higher education, and its compliance with the structures of labour market needs (Smolentseva, 2017). Indeed, the documents introduced and continued to use the concepts from economic discourse, such as ‘optimisation’, and introduction of the ‘networked form’ of realisation of educational programmes (following the World Bank assumption that more efficiently managed public resources translate into ‘higher quality’), ‘accountability’ in the meaning of monitoring and evaluation, involving ‘educational organisations’ and ‘employers’ into assessment and educational process, and framing students as ‘consumers’ able to make ‘choice’. In fact, the principle of ‘choice’ that was introduced in the Concept of Modernisation of Education (GD, 2002) connected the education policies with the cultivation of entrepreneurs, or self-responsibilising self-capitalising individuals (Lingard, 2011), and emphasised the further policy focus on creating individual trajectories for learners. The recent national policy documents (GD, 2012, 2016) also propose practice-oriented paradigm, in particular through an introduction of the Applied Bachelor. It is not surprising that the rhetoric of the key political leaders address the theme of education along the same lines. However, this has a very powerful legitimation role. The debate around teacher education and the push for reforms was already sparked by President Putin’s appeal for the new teacher in his 2001 Presidential Address. In his Address, President Putin urged the introduction of standards – that is, explicit, public statements of values, competencies, and qualities to be required from teachers and graduates, regarding lifelong learning and fitness to teach. He also called for a balance between fundamental and practical education oriented towards the labour market, for ‘independent’ quality assurance mechanisms, and for new financing schemes to underwrite all of this. Importantly, President Putin publicly framed education as a ‘service’ and explicitly connected teacher education to the economic discourse. In his address 12 years later to the Federal Council, in December 2013, he again emphasised the importance of financing in relation to quality control and assessment mechanisms. The system of ‘independent’ quality assessment was framed as ‘a mechanism to connect financing and outcomes’.

156  Elena Revyakina What is striking is that the rhetoric of the key documents and the country leader’s stance are ‘localisations’ of the rhetoric of the reports and recommendations coming from multilateral organisations. After the OECD report, The Knowledge-Based Economy (1996), the knowledge economy gradually became the dominant narrative of policy-makers. The process of decentralisation, making teacher education more market relevant and market flexible, and making ‘quality’ the focus of education investments based on learning outcomes was arguably triggered by the Wold Bank reports on Russian teacher education (Canning, Moock, & Heleniak, 1999; World Bank Report 2011; World Bank/HSE, 2013). As it was argued in literature (Aydarova, 2014; Huisman, Smolentseva, & Froumin, 2018; Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008; Smolentseva, 2017), the adoption of neoliberal reforms by post-Soviet Russian governments may be partly explained at policy-level by international assistance programmes (for example, OECD, World Bank reports and recommendation; EU TACIS1 projects), and at the political level by a deeply-felt logic of lagging behind other countries – also supported by OECD reports, and comparative quality assessment studies (such as PISA, PIRLS, TIMSS2). Thus, ‘fear of lagging behind’ and ‘hope to catch up with the education systems categorised as ‘advanced’ and ‘developed” (Robertson, 2018) became recurring motifs of education reform in Russia. Furthermore, the Bologna Process, started in Russia in 2003, stirred the process of realigning the Russian education system towards the common European structures. These suggested the process of competence-based standardisation, a modular system of education programmes (as opposed to a disciplinary approach), emergence of a National Qualifications Framework, that now recognises pre-primary and postgraduate education as levels of the education system, and measurement-driven rating systems of assessment according to formalised criteria. Development of a competence-based framework to target and assess individual teacher professional development thus became a fundamental concept in the teacher education policy. This approach entailed changes in teacher profession, teacher education structures, and pedagogies and led to greater regulation and standardisation. In Russia, the new standards employ a competence-based approach, which also requires Higher Education Institutions to clearly define the professional activities the graduates will be ‘fit for’ (Demchuk et al., 2015), their personal qualities, and potential employment areas. The MoTEP set its primary objective to align the teacher education programmes with competence-based professional and basic school education standards. It should be mentioned that in the Russian context, following the framework of the Tuning project methodology,3 the adopted framework for standards defines generic academic competencies, basic professional, and professional/subject-specific ‘competencies’ and ‘learning outcomes’ in an increasingly formalised manner. In sum, the federal educational standards, National Qualification Framework and the Law on Education (2012) – drawn on the globalised ideas – hugely regulate the context of policy production in teacher education.

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  157 To conclude this section, using a concept-oriented analysis within the Discourse Historical Approach, we can see that a number of certain concepts became prioritised in the key policy documents, and these influenced the conceptualisation of the MoTEP. The concepts include competence-based professional training, standardisation, choice, practice orientation, network cooperation, and ‘independent’ quality assurance mechanism. The Presidential directive4 from 22 May 2014 asked for practice enhanced teacher preparation, ‘independent’ assessment, and alignment of HE standards with education and professional standards. These became the key objectives of the MoTEP and legitimated the process of ‘modernisation’ 2014–2017. However, and this is crucial, the new wave of modernisation of teacher education was ‘triggered’ by an enhanced ‘mediatisation’ of crisis (Lingard & Rawolle, 2011) in teacher education in Russia – through ‘numbers’ (Lindblad, Pettersson, & Popkewitz, 2018). In the context of ‘performativity’ – a technology, a culture, and a mode of regulation that employs comparisons and displays as means of incentive, control, and change (Ball, 2006, p. 144), or ‘vertical vision’ (Robertson, 2018) – teacher education institutions became framed as having ‘features of ineffectiveness’, based on the monitoring process of Higher Education in 2012. In this case, we see an example of ‘governing by numbers’ (Rose, 1991), where the monitoring outcomes based on a limited number of indicators served as a rationale for a policy-led change in teacher education, and stirred a discussion around possible ‘solutions’ to the mediated crisis in the field. Whereas the Ministry response was framed in terms of ‘merging’ HEIs and sanctioning or closing ‘ineffective’ pedagogical HEIs, a coalition of academic, professional interests formulated their response to the policy problem. The proposed solutions formed a certain vision for the conceptual framework of Teacher Education, and consequently the MoTEP. This is discussed next.

The shaping ‘imaginary’ of higher teacher education in Russia A central task of education policy analysis remains an understanding of the complex relationships between ideas, the dissemination of ideas, and their recontextualisation. Through the concept-oriented analysis, the previous section explored the discursive construction of a certain context for change and highlighted the key political agenda to build a competitive knowledge-based economy. Indeed, a particular ‘imaginary’ for teacher education arguably can be placed within the discourse of ‘innovative economic imperative’ for a competitive knowledge-based economy. However, this would be only one side of the story. An ‘imaginary’, as a construction of collective aspirations for teacher education, encompasses a ‘pedagogical’ discourse alongside the official, ‘economic instrumental’ one. Indeed, there is a significant role for an advocacy coalition of academic, professional, and political interests in shaping a vision for the MoTEP. The role taken by the academic and professional communities – further described as ‘agents of change’ – in regard to the radical reform of teacher

158  Elena Revyakina education across the period under study is indeed intriguing. In the immediate run-up to the MoTEP initiative, it was both strategic and inspired. Arguably, a number of well-respected and well-placed individual educators saw a significant policy opportunity that could be exploited. They not only offered a coherent and well-judged response to the coming call for radical reform of teacher education across the Federation but also moved with the intention of positioning themselves within the policy action. They are seen here as ‘agents of change’ and reformers, developers of ideas and policy-solutions. A Working Group commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Education and Science (the Ministry) was set up to formulate the key principles and tasks for the planned institutional changes in teacher education and develop the framework and roadmap for the MoTEP. In essence, it became a forum where representatives of the Ministry, experts from leading HEIs, and professional community expressed their views on the future of teacher education and formulated the key objectives of the MoTEP, the framework and ‘roadmap’, and developed target indicators. It became the nexus, the point of all key interactions and decision-making. A number of issues then arose. First, which problems were emphasised by the ‘agents of change’? The main concern was framed as a disconnect between teacher preparation which traditionally is focused around deep subject matter knowledge and new basic school standards which are constructed within an ‘activity’-based paradigm. Next, they formulated the problem of the unattractiveness of the teaching profession, and consequently of teacher education. The problem is around attracting motivated students, and a lack of related mechanisms was captured much earlier in the notion ‘double negative selection’. Interestingly, whereas the previous reforms, which placed teacher education in the ‘survival’ position in the market-oriented educational landscape, were aimed at structural changes (such as through merging of pedagogic HEIs into ‘multi-discipline Universities’), the ‘agents of change’ suggested that the main vector of development of teacher education should become a radical change in its content, in particular the ‘practical turn’ in teacher education. The ‘agents of change’ argued that a change, which they framed as ‘modernisation’, should start with the development of the New Standard of Professional Activity of a Pedagogue (Teacher) – importantly, along broader and flexible lines. A broad framework would give ‘flexibility and freedom’ in return for more ‘responsibilities’ and ‘accountability’; interestingly, a non-conventional approach for the Russian context with a tradition of rigid and prescriptive standards; although interestingly the approach was proposed in earlier World Bank reports (Bentley, Froumin, & Vasiliev, 2004). Importantly, the ‘agents of change’ argued for enhanced teacher qualification requirements – aligned with the new standard of basic school education. Essentially, they argued for an activity-based approach in teacher education where not only subject-knowledge is important but also pedagogical knowledge, and instructional skills to ‘develop and co-work with the child’. In effect, they proposed that the content and form of the new

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  159 Higher Teacher Education should include a comprehensive developmental psychology preparation, be more practice-oriented, and – critically  – include reflective and research elements. For this to work, formalised and greatly enhanced ‘network cooperation’ with schools and other educational organisations was seen as a prerequisite – they should become the ‘practice-base’ to prepare future teachers as ‘specialists’. In this proposal for ‘modernisation’, the Masters Degree was seen as the necessary university qualification, and graduates’ pedagogical competencies would be measured and assessed either by professional associations, employers, or related state bodies. In this approach, the articulation of ideas and interests for Higher Teacher Education relies to a large extent on the globalised ideas and trends in teacher education, as well as more traditional local pedagogies. The ‘agents of change’ argued strongly for change in the content, form, and structure of teacher education, for the professionalisation of teaching profession by extending the minimum qualification level to Master’s. This argument reflects a deep understanding of the complexity of the teaching profession; however, it ran contrary to the more pragmatic line set in the official documents towards shorter Initial Teacher Education programmes followed by continuous professional development.

MoTEP as a re-contextualising of Russian higher teacher education within global policy prescriptions of reform A number of concepts became prioritised within the MoTEP. These framed teacher education in terms of competence-based professional training. It should be standardised, bring diversity and consolidation, be practice-oriented, operating on a principle of ‘network cooperation’, and ‘independently’ assessed. These aspects are truly discursive in the sense that they encapsulate an entirety of meaning and experience within a certain re-contextualising context. Thus, particular attention is given to the ‘localisation’ of these within and through MoTEP throughout its cycle as a policy action. Although there are convergences in the discourse around teacher education globally, local interpretations and appropriations are contextually dependent and far from stable. Teacher education as professional training In the MoTEP documentation, Higher Teacher Education is framed as professional preparation/training. Contradictorily, the academic community recognised the complexity of the teaching profession, and the danger of falling into what Vygotsky called ‘paraprofessional’ – preparing a technician who performs actions automatically. Indeed, according to a senior staff member at a pedagogical Higher Education Institution, the intention of MoTEP was ‘to get away from the conventional image of a teacher as half-professional who does what you say, and more likely you will get more or less what you

160  Elena Revyakina want’. The academic community positioned teaching as a profession that requires the full and proper professional education of teachers. At policy and practice level, however, the ideas of ‘applied bachelor’, a variety of entrance routes to the teaching profession, and the merging of pedagogic HEIs into ‘multi-discipline Universities’ were prioritised. This indicates an important question relating to the envisioned MoTEP model of teacher professionalism – which is conceptualised by the academic community as being a ‘reflective practitioner’ but in official discourse as being a ‘practical professional’ (see Jones & Joss, 1995). Nevertheless, the question of what kind of ‘a professional’ should be ‘prepared’ or ‘trained-up’ is linked to the competencies inscribed in and by educational and professional standards and promulgated by the MoTEP. In fact, the overarching objectives of MoTEP were ‘to align teacher education programmes with the new education standards’ (Framework, 2014) and to ground new practices on the emerging professional standard of the teacher. These were meant to define a ‘quality’ of education. Quality: teacher education as alignment with standards Teacher education should become aligned with basic school educational and professional standards, both of obligational and highly detailed, prescriptive character. In the policy-makers’ stance, correspondence to standards signifies ‘quality’ of education. This is different, however, from more traditional perceptions of ‘quality’. ‘Teaching quality’ was understood in clearly defined principles and practices (curricular contents, lesson plans, textbooks), sufficient inputs, and well-implemented processes (pedagogies and leadership), as well as academic judgment, selection, and competition as the main purposes of learners’ assessment. The President’s Order and Law of 2012 and then the Government Order №23 in January 2013, legitimated the development of new competence-linked ‘Professional Standards’ in the new ‘quality’ model. This was to become the defining document for the teaching profession and teacher education – driving all future work in relation to vision, values, skills, knowledge, and attitudes. The process of text production of such a paramount document was unsurprisingly complicated and controversial. Interestingly, first seen as ‘liberating’, ‘motivating’, ‘guaranteeing high quality, prestige and variability’, the professional standard became more ‘tightening’, ‘prescriptive’, ‘evaluating’, ‘normalising and consolidating’. It was seen as an instrument to reinforce change, as well as a means to select teachers and ultimately lead to effective contracts with teachers (Project of Professional Standard, 2015). Therefore, it becomes the defining document for teacher education, teacher selection, professional development, and work. Moreover, the ‘Independent’ assessment of the students participating in the MoTEP that was claimed as one of planned outcomes of the project was grounded on competencies outlined in the professional standard.

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  161 Teacher education: ‘Independently’ assessed Originally, the new ‘activity-based’ paradigm, first introduced in the standards of basic school, and consequently in teacher education, became a warrant for change in assessment. The agents of change argued for both theoretical and practice-based assessment to evaluate knowledge and required competencies. It was assumed that the proposed quality assurance mechanism should allow for the employers to judge if and how well a graduate is prepared for professional activity. For instance, the division of assessment in Bachelor programmes was envisaged as follows: teacher educators assess academic development of students with the help of standardised methods, and tutors or supervisors in schools evaluate the personal and professional growth of teacher students (Margolis, 2014, p. 121). Thus, such a conceptual framing of ‘independent assessment’ implies shared responsibility between academic and professional communities. However, two key factors significantly changed the conceptual rhetoric of ‘independent assessment’. The first factor is linked with the idea of diversity of educational trajectories, and the conflicted discourse around the required level to enter teaching profession. A qualifying examination aligned with the professional standard becomes a ‘key element of a new system of teacher training’. It is aimed at ‘simplifying entrance to profession and assessing the quality of training’ (Safronova & Bysik, 2014, p. 79). This implies that an ‘independent’ examination to qualify as a teacher can be taken at different levels of education, with an argument for fewer barriers to the teaching profession. The conceptualisation within the MoTEP implies ‘independent assessment’ from the teacher education provider, but strictly grounded on measuring materials developed by the working group of the MoTEP mainly a coalition of the academic and professional community. These are based on the requirements defined in the professional standard. The argument for ‘independent assessment’ comes from the ‘performance accountability’ stance. These should help both to recruit teachers who are prepared for professional activity and to monitor which teacher education providers fail to ‘meet the required level’. The development of the ‘independent assessment’ as an instrument to assess learning outcomes has gone through two main stages and faced challenges on the way. The main challenge was to find a formula to attract a team of experts both from the professors participating in the MoTEP and the practitioners – to maintain the ‘independent’ element in order to achieve objectivity. The solution was found in two stages of expertise – standardisation of conditions to avoid subjectivity of the assessing process, and therefore, the developers had to turn to tests and case-based tasks. The final decision on the tasks was made after experts and practitioners had given their evaluation; designing a special e-platform facilitated this. Thus, we see the advantage of operationalisation and an opportunity to optimise the process was prioritised.

162  Elena Revyakina Teacher education: variability and/or consolidation? The new model positions educational institutions as service-providing organisations as part of a grand-challenge based policy action to instantiate a ‘quasi-market’ mechanism in higher education – including Higher Teacher Education. Variety and flexibility of educational trajectories were articulated as a solution to the low prestige and attractiveness of teacher education, which was framed as linked to a traditionally linear one-path trajectory. The intention was to increase the number of people joining pedagogic programmes through an increase of a number of entrance points. The concept of variability becomes linked to the concepts of ‘choice’ and ‘individualisation’. The idea of diverse teacher education in both teacher education and nonteacher education institutions was one of major policy ideas at the early stages of development of MoTEP, and up to 2016. This was reflected in three ways. First, the ‘agents of change’ intended to shape concurrent models that encompass initial teacher education together with extended practice (Applied and Academic Bachelor, and Academic Master) and a consecutive model with a focus on psychologic-pedagogical education – Professional Master. In fact, the idea of diversity gave a chance to pedagogic institutions to find their own path of development. For instance, multi-disciplinary universities could use the Academic Bachelor based on the principle of Liberal Arts, or Institutes of Psychology and Pedagogy within multi-disciplinary universities could concurrently use subject departments in classical universities. Interestingly, a consecutive model has not been widely appropriated in the Russian context. Arguably, this is linked with the traditionally linear system and longer programmes of Specialists Diploma while a transition to the two cycle-system led to the interpretation of the Master’s programmes as an extension of the Bachelor’s of the same profile. Kasprzhak and Kalashnikov (2015, p. 91) noted that the Russian two-cycle system has followed its own path of development. Following the traditional Specialist cycle of five years, the two levels of Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees were seen as two ‘connected’ elements of one educational trajectory. Second, the idea of diverse teacher education is placed within the discourse of learning outcomes and competencies. This implies that a variety of technologies can be adopted to achieve these; however, they should lead to formation of consolidated required outcomes. Third, the concept is linked with the idea of ‘individualisation’ and ‘student-centredness’. One of the key principles of the conceptual framework of MoTEP, and indeed of school educational standards, was articulated as ‘student-centredness’. From 2016, the rhetoric around variability and choice has become dominated by the rhetoric of developing a ‘common ground’, a ‘common language’, ‘consolidated educational field’. Teacher Education as activity-based pedagogy The foundation principle of MoTEP became the activity-based pedagogy with the intention to prepare the ‘know-how’ teacher who understands that ‘theories and methods are needed to solve tasks which they face’. The

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  163 transformative force of such a paradigm was to be operationalised in both content and structural changes. Here, the academic community relies on the ‘local’ theories in pedagogy and psychology (e.g. Leont’ev’s, Elkonin’s, Davidov’s, Gal’perin’s, Zankov’s, Vygotskiy’s). Then teacher education should involve shaping personally meaningful actions in professional practice – probes or experiences in ‘pedagogical workshops’ and ‘pedagogic internships’ followed by reflective practice. Teacher education itself was framed by the ‘agents of change’ as ‘pedagogical activity’ to show the action and practice foundation for teacher education programmes. Interestingly, an idea for new models of ‘school-based practices’ originates in the international research around ‘clinical’ approach in teacher education and the principles of ‘school-university partnership’ (Zeichner & Bier, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). It was seen as an attempt to ‘create advanced teacher education’, as opposed to ‘lagging’ behind the school. The idea can be summed in the following way: (1) schools are involved in demonstration of ‘professional actions’; (2) supervision of teacher students’ short-term teaching experience during their in-school practice; (3) and participation in teacher students’ research/inquiry based learning. The ‘partnership’ operates on a contract basis. Schools should get extra funding for their work as ‘partners’ in the educational process. Having emphasised teacher education in the university sector, the academic community pushes for a more active involvement of employers and highly qualified and experienced teachers in both educational process and assessment. In practice, the idea turned out to be not unproblematic. Finally, the approach was formulated in the ‘networked’ principle and placed at the heart of MoTEP. Here, the imaginary of ‘network cooperation’ was extended to include a number of meanings and functions. These can be summarised as (1) educational mechanism and ‘practice-oriented’ mechanism on the one hand, and (2) a governance and ‘scaling’ mechanism, and optimisation mechanism on the other hand. Whereas the former was partly discussed, the latter will be considered in the next section that explores the process of change, and its politics, in more detail.

The politics of scaling: ‘Governing the Change’ This section explores how the movement from an ‘imaginary’ generated within the advocacy coalition to a scaled institutional change was happening. Interestingly, the study of the MoTEP suggests that the discourse of an educational innovation for the knowledge economy is linked not only to convergence in policy ideas but also in governance approaches (i.e. coordination of action (Altrichter, 2010)). The logic of a National Innovation System developed and promoted by the World Bank and OECD has been absorbed without the necessary criticality into education policy in Russia, and has its specific ‘localisation’. In brief, a system of interconnected institutions within the MoTEP was formed to initiate, develop, and diffuse new technologies and knowledges, identified as ‘best practice’, and provide the framework within which the

164  Elena Revyakina Ministry could form and implement policies. Primarily, the process involved the ‘transference’ of one HEI’s practices intermingled with the proposed ideas from the Working Group into other institutional milieux. The state strategic action can be characterised by two key features: orientation towards outcomes (as expressed in planned outcomes and indicators), and orientation to make rapid progress towards certain goals locally set – the MoTEP has a two stage road map of the period of four years with strict deadlines and Work Packages. For the first stage (2014–2015), 13 HEIs were selected. They won the State grant contracts and received their Work Packages within the MoTEP. The winners of the ‘contest to participate’ joint the MoTEP, in June 2014. Since June 2014, the participants, as grant winners, had been working on their ‘technical tasks’.5 These were determined by State grant contracts and agreements, and the conceptual framework of MoTEP. The technical tasks included development of new ‘practice oriented’ modules for Applied and Academic Bachelor and Research and Professional Master programmes. In more detail, during two summer months by the beginning of the academic year 2014/2015, partner-HEIs were to design modules aligned with working functions of the Professional Standard of ‘Pedagogue’ (teacher), prepare educational plans and timetables, establish contact with educational organisations and methodological and legislative support for ‘university-school partnerships’. In some cases, the teams of ‘designers’ were acting as ‘grassroot managers’, outpacing the normative machine. Indeed, the MoTEP teams were involved in the ‘experiment’ within an ‘old pot’ of standards and formalised normative rules. Throughout and at the end of the first stage, the participating HEIs were to ‘defend’ their work – an open presentation to the MoTEP teams, its leaders and the Ministry representatives. The intention was to create a consolidated understanding, ‘conceptual’ thesaurus, and a shared space for meaning making. For the second stage (2016–2017), eight HEIs were selected to develop competence-based educational programmes, and online courses. Each of these eight HEIs were required to identify other HEIs and create networks with them. Their role was ‘piloting’ of the developed programmes – based on a new module-principle. The scale is impressive. In total, 53 HEIs were selected to network with the eight contest-winners in developing and trying out the new education programmes – across the entire country. Throughout the MoTEP, the role of selected HEIs was framed in the concepts of ‘design’ and further ‘trial’/‘piloting’ and ‘dissemination’. The leading HEIs became a laboratory of new models of Higher Teacher Education. Its product was to be disseminated by the academic community among themselves. However, the process has another strand – the laboratory has to operate within the strategic long-term perspectives and trends in socio-economic development of the Federal State Programmes. Thus, the process is led by the State. In fact, the MoTEP was seen by the Ministry as a way of reconstructing governance of the sector in line with its understandings of effective regulatory practices, where ‘quality’ is the priority.

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  165 To enable a certain consolidation and the dissemination process, the principle of ‘network cooperation’ of HEIs was introduced, later augmented by the creation of the Federal Coordination Council. The former intended to allow for both professional development through collaboration, and optimisation – by ‘using intellectual and e-resources of member-HEIs’. As part of the governance mechanism of such a cooperation, two resource centres at two Moscow HEIs were formed. It signified a transition to a more formally designated and centralised mechanism of bringing ‘resources’ of HEIs together under the umbrella of the resource centre on the one hand. On the other hand, the role of the ‘Innovative Bases’ – the leading HEIs of the resource centres – was to develop, test, and implement ideas proposed for projects (such as the MoTEP), which should be approved by the Ministry (or other Federal State body). Importantly, the projects should primarily meet the strategic priority needs and visions of the State, and secondly, the public (educational) interests. The whole process of formation of the latter – the Federal Coordination Council – was linked to a wider political intention of building its ‘effective and harmonious operation’ (Sobolev, 2015). Indeed, the vision resided in two lines: a line for a more centralised consolidated topdown governance approach; and a line for building stronger connections between educational organisations, and for collaborative learning. Such an institutional arrangement had an interesting and controversial consequence for the academic community, especially those institutions occupying top positions. There occurred a shift in the relations between the State and the academic community towards ‘closer cohesion’ (importantly, represented by a selected group). The relations were characterised as ‘bringing the State and the academic community closer together’. This can be seen as a positive development. Such an arrangement creates a space to evolve bottom-up ideas and practices, and for the academic community to be truly heard as opposed to the more conventional top-down operation in education policy-making. However, this might carry risks for collective and individual agency, and a loss in intellectual autonomy of the academic community and a fall into a regime of state-controlled teacher higher education in the field of ideas and structures. In this, the governing mechanism through competition plays its role. In the MoTEP, competition between the participating HEIs was sustained through a very tangible mechanism of ‘being needed’ in the view of the State, and hence with the hope for further support. Arguably, the role of individual and collective agency is paramount in maintaining the institutional autonomy. With this in mind, a final observation is important. The process of participation in the MoTEP was signified as a change in the dynamics of collective and individual agency. The combination of ‘flexibility’ approaches and compliance mechanisms during the first stage had a double effect. On the one hand, the nature of MoTEP afforded opportunities to design and implement ideas in specific context-dependent settings and made partner-HEIs find creative solutions to arising institutional constraints. In this sense, the engaged teams were given a chance to find meaning in the work that they were doing. Participation had a

166  Elena Revyakina transformative effect on collective and individual agency of the participating academic community. The shifts were around international collaboration; collaboration between the MoTEP-partners at different levels; and connection between the State and the academic community. On the other hand, the partner-HEIs had to be compliant with certain regulations and had to link their activities to the MoTEP objectives and framework. By doing so, they had to reject alternative (even braver) ideas and arguments that did not suit the framework. In the long run, consolidation around a specific framework might mean rejecting institutional traditions in specific regional teacher HEIs. In the short run, the mandated compliance means mere application of prescribed rule and ideas. An important outcome was seen to be the creation of a ‘common base’ for teacher education, as well as ‘the real core’ of the teacher educators who are capable of solving complex tasks, and to ‘move the problem of development of teacher education forward’. For the second stage, within the already prevailing logic of efficiency, the governance approach put more emphasis on the outcomes of action – precise target indicators. Within the MoTEP, the Ministry set out a plan of quantitative indicators: not less than 13 Exemplary Education Programmes in Pedagogic Education, six federal standards, not less than 28 online courses and not less than 100 HEIs by the end of 2017 must join the MoTEP. The strategy of compliance through ‘accountability to’ and ‘alignment with’ was intensified by the prospect of the test-based learning outcomes assessment, and the contract operation with certain penalty mechanisms. Such a context implied a certain purpose construction for the actors – alongside interest-driven motivation, and in some cases an intention to survive as a result of previous market-oriented reforms, a focus on outputs was made. The process became more of instrumental, compliant character; as one respondent noted: ‘the project became more technological’ with a focus on alignment with target indicators and Work Packages to bring it to its logical end. One of the unexpected reasons was a political turn in the Russian Federation. New pathways and unexpected courses On 19 August 2016, the Ministry cabinet was reshuffled with an appointment of a new Minister. The new cabinet was appointed to operate within a certain paradigm – neo-conservative paradigm (Boguslavsky, 2014). According to Boguslavsky, the neo-conservative paradigm developing from 2013 is characterised by (1) reinforcement of normative, legislative, and regulative functions of the State; (2) prescription of professional activity and behaviour of key actors in education; (3) decrease in variability; (4) more complicated qualification procedures; and (5) an emphasis on alignment with social norms. The ideological change resulted in a conflict between the original ideas of MoTEP and the new line. To remind us, the original key ideas put into the MoTEP were framed in terms of (1) variability and flexibility in educational

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  167 trajectories of teacher education, entrances to and exits from Higher Teacher Education; (2) practice-enhanced teacher education; (3) a focus on professionalism; (4) a new module-principle in educational programmes design and broader frameworks for educational programmes with less prescription of content; (5) an outcomes-based approach to design. The new line was expressed in a vision for increased consolidation through (1) content-enhanced teacher education; (2) a focus on ‘upbringing’ and spiritual development, and an emphasis on citizenship and patriotism in educational processes; (3) an increase in the compulsory consolidated ‘core’ of educational programmes in Higher Teacher Education; and (4) conceptualising a pedagogue’s activity as devotion as opposed to market-based ‘service’. This led to criticism of prior ideas and innovations, best expressed in the newly introduced concept and word ‘de-subjectification’, or focus on activity rather than a discipline and content. The change in the cabinet was followed by the reformation of the pool of trusted experts and new appointments in key pedagogic HEIs, and ‘walking-away’ of a number of key actors from the MoTEP. Indeed, the academic community became consultants for a particular agenda, or problem. This, however, does not guarantee that proposed ideas will be interpreted in the intended way. This also does not help avoid the risk posed by an unstable political context and a change in the ideological paradigm.

Conclusion and remarks on the ‘Present Future’ In the present chapter, I intended to give an account of policy-led change in Higher Teacher Education in the Federation (2014–2017) – more exactly the process of ‘localisation’ of global teacher education reform movement in a unique setting. Consideration of the life-arc of MoTEP showed that the appropriation of globalised ideas is hugely affected by local socio-economic, political and cultural realities, pedagogical traditions, and wider national reforms in the field of education. Indeed, the web of local factors in unique socio-historical contexts positions nations differently as to what can be done, how these ideas can be realised locally – including how they enter the field, and which ideas become prioritised and mediatised. The result in this case is a unique rereading/reinterpretation of the discourse in keeping with the Russian cultural context and policy-work setting. It was argued that in order to understand the process and effects of ‘localisation’, one needs to think ‘big’ and ‘small’. Through the ‘official’ discourse, we could de-construct the ‘vernacularised’ ideologies, the discursive and conceptual realm of the related policies; and with this a certain policy ‘context for change’ – that forced Higher Teacher Education into a whole-scale transformation. Following a certain ideological logic, the role of education was ‘flattened’ (Robertson, 2018) to the delivery of a knowledge-based economy and human capital formation. Moreover, it was placed in the situation of regulated, data-driven competition and ranking. Consequently, Higher Teacher Education found itself needing to reposition in order to survive,

168  Elena Revyakina mainly due to increasingly market-oriented expectations imposed by policy from the centre and due to a growing issue with the attractiveness of teaching profession under the new arrangements. The sector thus had to find new ways to adjust and be more co-operative, if its deepest value bases were to endure. ‘The vertical vision’ (ibid) – constructed mainly by the multilateral organisations – directed the national education system towards ‘permanent’ and ‘catching-up’ modernisation, reliant on ideas tried in nations with more ‘advanced’ or highly ranked education systems. However, in accounting for the policy-led change, ‘the local particularities of policy making and policy enactment’ (Ball, 1998) are crucial. At institutional level, we have seen that the Russian teacher education is a conservative institution, and is slow and careful in embracing change, and can give a reversed push back. Moreover, there is still a strong tradition of an administrative vertical hierarchy as a constitutive rule of the institution – with heavy bureaucratic apparatus that creates a hugely top-down regulative context. However, the MoTEP, whether unintentionally or intentionally, sought to change this by enhancing collective and individual agency in the process of change. Thus, I conclude in a positive vein, considering the sort of changes that the MoTEP brought in. The MoTEP made a difference in at least one unexpected way. Primarily, it enhanced agentic dynamism among the HEI participants. The MoTEP attempted to involve actors in networked learning, meaning making, and cooperation. The key concept of the MoTEP framework – the modular structure of teacher education – required a transformation of ‘department’-based theory-oriented discipline structure of teaching and learning into an interdisciplinary, activity-oriented structure of teaching and learning, connected at various institutional levels and supported by the possibility of meaningful e-learning such as bespoke online courses. Undoubtedly, such a radical change requires a change in a mind-set. A change in beliefs and behaviours is at the heart of development. However, not less important is the context and institutional climate. Network communities and partnerships are not self-contained entities; they develop in larger context (Sachs, 2003). The MoTEP left its lasting legacy by affording opportunities for purposive and positive networked collaboration. This requires further sustainable development. Fullan (2007, p. 301) argued that ‘if the conditions stay the same, we will always have only a minority who can resist against many odds’. Thus, he suggested that we must change existing conditions ‘so that it is normal and possible for a majority of people to move forward’. The MoTEP provided an opportune moment for enhanced collaboration and peer learning during its first stage. However, hierarchical relationships have been the cultural norm in the Russian setting. Enhanced by compliance mechanisms, and intensified by the competitive pragmatic context, the opportune moment for meaningful growth could have been missed. Nevertheless, the MoTEP has shown that transformation is possible. It signified the kind of leadership when actors could say ‘we did it ourselves’.

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  169 More importantly, it contributed to establishing a more connected community of teacher educators and has increased the role of the expert community at the policy-making arena. For the academic community, the MoTEP signified a way out of institutional isolation and opportunity for learning from other HEIs’ practices. With the acknowledged importance of psychological and pedagogical teacher education for economic and social development of the nation among the Ministry policy makers, the role of the academic community in contributing to decision-making has significantly increased. The key achievement of MoTEP was expressed in seeing the academic community as the ‘real core’, as a collective that is capable to solve complex tasks and ‘move teacher education forward’. The consolidated modality of work towards consolidated goals and creation of a consolidated teacher education area, however, should be paid careful attention. Since consolidation has various aspects, for example harmonisation may differ from unification, it is crucial to understand where this particular consolidation moves teacher education. Abélès (2004) argued that working towards harmonisation rather than unification means accepting difference and the necessity of compromise. In conclusion, it should be noted that MoTEP and the application of the policy learning involved have effectively defined target indicators for the mid-to long-term future of Higher Teacher Education in Russia. This includes a number of key policy documents: ‘Portrait of the Russian Pedagogue’; The Professional Standard of Pedagogue; and, not least, The Federal Education Standards in Teacher Education Generation 3++. This official legal incorporation of the standards essentially terminates the MoTEP policy cycle. The decision was made to commend the Ministry and the Federal Consolidated Group to develop the next ‘Modernisation of Teacher Education’ Programme for the period from 2018 to 2020. This has a focus on Lifelong Learning and Continuous Teacher Education. The MoTEP has essentially set the agenda for teacher higher education in Russia for the foreseeable future

Notes 1 European Union Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States and Georgia projects aimed to support the ongoing process of economic reform and development, and help individual states to develop effectively-functioning market economies based on private ownership and initiative. 2 PISA is the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment; PIRLS and TIMMS are the International comparative assessments of students’ achievement in Mathematics and Science (TIMMS) and Reading (PIRLS). The results enable participating countries to make evidence-based decisions for education policy in particular by measuring the effectiveness of educational systems, pinpointing areas of weakness and stimulating curriculum reform, and measuring the impact of new educational initiatives. 3 Tuning Education Structures in Europe started in 2000 as a project to link the objectives of the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy to the higher educational sector. The project and the Tuning process served as a platform for developing reference points for subject areas expressed in terms of competences and learning outcomes.

170  Elena Revyakina 4 The Presidential directives have crucial implications to understand the culture of decision-making in Russia. They set a concrete goal for the Government, which decides who will be involved in developing trajectories for their implementation. 5 A similarity of the concept to that accepted in the European Commission term ‘content work packages’ should be noted. Both imply a building block of work breakdown structure that allows the project management to define the steps necessary for completion of the work. Both can be thought of as a sub-project, or a component of the Project, such as MoTEP.

References Abélès, M. (2004). Identity and borders: And anthropological approach to EU institutions. Twenty First Century Papers no. 4. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Altrichter, H. (2010). Theory and Evidence on Governance: Conceptual and empirical strategies of research on governance in education. European Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 147–158. Amin, A. (1997). Placing globalization. London: SAGE Publications. https://doi. org/10.1177/026327697014002011 Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press. Asmolov, A. G. (2017). Vygotsky today: On the verge of non-classical psychology, intro. J. V. Wertsch. New York: Nova Science. Atard-Tonna, M., & Madalinska-Michalak, J. (Eds.). (2018). Teacher education policy and practice. International perspectives and inspirations. TEPE Network Teacher Education Policy in Europe. Warsaw: FRSE. Aydarova, O. (2014). Universal principles transform national priorities: Bologna process and Russian teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37(Jan), 64–75. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.10.001 Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 38(2), 119–130. doi:10.1080/03050069828225 Ball, S. J. (2006). Education policy and social class. The selected works of Stephen J. Ball. Landon: Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313. Bentley, M., Froumin, I., & Vasiliev, K. (2004). Modernization of the Russian education (Russian). Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/ curated/en/669731468095068540/Modernization-of-the-Russian-education Boguslavsky, M. V. (2014). Conservative strategy of Russian education modernization in the 20th – early 21st century. Problemi sovremennogo obrazovania, 1, 5–11. Canning, M., Moock, P. R., Heleniak, T. E., & World Bank. (1999). Reforming education in the regions of Russia. Washington, DC: World Bank. Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or for worse? Educational Researcher, 34(7), 3–17. doi:10.3102/0013189X034007003 Cochran-Smith, M. (2016). ‘Foreword’ In The Teacher Education Group. Teacher education in times of change: Responding to challenges across the UK and Ireland. Bristol, UK; Chicago, IL: Policy Press. x–xvi. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  171 Darling-Hammond L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 1–15. Demchuk, A., Karavaeva, Y., Kovtun, Y., & Rodionova, S. (2015). Competencies, learning outcomes and forms of assessment: the use of Tuning Methodology in Russia. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 3(1). doi:10.18543/tjhe-3(1)2015pp149-185 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2015). The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Framework (2014). Komplexsnaya programma povishenya professionalnogo urovnya pedagogicheskich rabotnikov obsheobrazovatel’nikh organizatsiy. The Complex Programme of Professional Development of Pedagogic Staff Members in General School Organisations dated from 28 May 2014. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). London: Routledge. GD (2002). Kontseptsia modernizatsii rossijskogo obrazovania na period do 2010. The Concept of Modernisation of the Russian Education for the period till 2010. GD (2008). Kontseptsia dolgosrochnogo social’no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya Rossijskoi Federatsii na period do 2020 goda. The Concept of Long-Term Social Economic Development of the Russian Federation for the period till 2020. M. GD (2012). Gosudarstvennaya programma Rossijskoy Federatsii "Razvitie obrazovaniya" na 2013 - 2020 gody. State Programme of the Russian Federation “Development of Education” for 2013–2020. GD (2016). Federal’naya celevaya programma razvitiya obrazovanija na 2016–2020 gody. Federal Target Programme of Development of Education for the period 2016–2020. M. Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed., pp. 248). Routledge. Gounko, T. (2008) Translating from soviet to neo-liberal: Policy transitions in Russian Higher Education and the role of the World Bank, the OECD, and the IMF. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag. Gounko, T., & Smale, W. (2007). Modernization of Russian Higher Education: Exploring path of influence. Compare, 37(4), 533–548. Gurova, G. (2018). Soviet, post-Soviet and neo-liberal: Governing Russian schools through quality assurance and evaluation. Policy Futures in Education, 16(4), 398– 415. doi:10.1177/1478210317743648 Huisman, J., Smolentseva, A., & Froumin, I. (Eds.). (2018). 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-soviet countries. Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6_13 Jones, S., & Joss, R. (1995). Models of professionalism. In Yelloly, M. (Eds.), Learning and teaching in social work: Towards reflective practice (pp. 15–32). Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Kasprzhak, A. G., & Kalashnikov, S. P. (2015). First results of developing the academic bachelor and research master program models under the modernization program of teacher education. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 20(5), 29–44 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.). doi:10.17759/ pse.2015200504 Krzyżanowski, M. (2011) Political communication, institutional cultures and linearities of organisational practice: A discourse-ethnographic approach to institutional change in the European Union. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(4), 281–296. doi:10. 1080/17405904.2011.601638

172  Elena Revyakina Law (2012) Federal’nyi zakon ob obrazovanii v Rossijskoy Federatsii. Federal Law on Education in the Russian Federation. M. Levin, B. (1998). An epidemic of education policy: (What) can we learn from each other? Comparative Education, 34(2), 131–141. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/3099797 Lindblad, S., Pettersson, D., & Popkewitz, T. (Eds.). (2018). Education by the numbers and the making of society. New York: Routledge. DOI.org/20.4324/ 9781315100432 Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/counting for educational research. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355–382. doi:10.1007/ s13384-011-0041-9. Lingard, B., & Rawolle, S. (2011). New scalar politics: Implications for education policy. Comparative Education, 47(4), 489–502. Margolis, A. A. (2014). Problems and prospects of the development of pedagogic education in the Russian Federation. /Psikhologicheskaya nauka I obrazovanie. The Psychological Science and Education Journal, 19(3), 41–57. OECD (1996). The knowledge based economy. Paris: OECD Publishing. Popkewitz, T. S. (1996). Rethinking decentralization and the state/civil society distinctions: The state as a problematic of governing. Journal of Educational Policy, 11(1), 27–51. Project of Professional Standard (2015). Professional’niy standard pedagoga. Professional Standard of ‘Pedagogue’ (Concept and Content), dated 12.02.2015. Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2016). The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA). In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds.), Critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 23–61). London: Sage. Revyakina, E., & Galvin, C. (2018). Values, imaginaries and policy-making for Teacher Education: insights from researching the Russian Federation context of reform, 2000–2017. Education and Self Development, 13(3), 25–39. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity–heterogeneity. In Feathersone, M., Lash, S., & Robertson, R. (Eds.), Global modernities. London: Sage. Robertson, S. L. (2012). Placing teachers in global governance agendas. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 584–607. doi:10.1086/667414 Robertson, S. L. (2018). ‘Setting aside settings: On the contradictory dynamics of “flat earth”, “ordinalization” and “cold spot” governing projects shaping education. Keynote at ECER 2018, Bolzano. Rose, N. (1991). Governing by numbers: Figuring out democracy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(7), 673–692. Sachs, J. (2003). The activist teaching profession. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Safronova, M. A., & Bysik, H. V. (2014). Description of the project of pedagogical education modernization. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 19(3), 78–86 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.). Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

The modernisation of Teacher Education Project  173 Silova, I., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2008). Unwrapping the post-socialist reform package. In I. Silova & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.), How NGOs react: Globalization and education reform in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Mongolia. Sterling: Kumarian. Smolentseva, A. (2017). Where Soviet and neoliberal discourses meet: The transformation of the purposes of higher education in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. Higher Education, 74(6), 1091–1108. Sobolev (2015). The Program of Teacher Education: New Challenges (Current Status and Development Trends of State Policy in Higher Teacher Education)// Programma razvitiya pedagogitcheskogo obrazovanye: novye vizovi (Aktual’noe sostoyanye I tendentsii razvitya gosudarstvennoy politiki v sfere visschego pedagogitcheskogo obrazovanya). Psychological Science and Education, 20(5), 5–12. Stahl, T. (2013). What is immanent critique? SSRN Working Papers. Retrieved July 20, 2018 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2357957 Veyne, P. (2010). Foucault: His thought, his character. Cambridge: Polity. WB Report (2011). The modernization of education in Russia. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. WB/HSE (2013). Vasiliev, Kirill; Lukiyanova, Anna; Chugunov, Dmitry; Maltseva, Inna; Shulga, Ivan; Rutkowski, Jan J.; Cahu, Paul Marie Michel; Travkin, Pavel; Roshchin, Sergey; Nellemann, Soren. 2013. Developing skills for innovative growth in the Russian Federation (English). Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/460821468107067600/ Developing-skills-for-innovative-growth-in-the-Russian-Federation Zeichner, K., & Bier, M. (2013). The turn toward practice and clinical experiences in U.S. teacher education. Beitrage Zur Lehrerbildung/Swiss Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2), 153–170.

Part 3

The future

7 Where next for Russian teacher education? Ilshat Gafurov and Roza Valeeva

Introduction The system of teacher education in Russia performs not only the executive function of teacher supply but also the pioneering function of preparing specialists for the continuously developing system of education. That is, the system now acknowledges the nature of teaching as a fully professional activity in which the teacher can respond positively to change throughout their career. This development is influenced by global trends and by research in education. The policy focus on teacher education and teacher quality is highly visible all around the world and in the case of Russia forms the backbone of the whole education system which: • facilitates the formation of competent and autonomous pedagogues who are capable of dealing with challenges in an independent and creative way and, at the same time, who are aware of the personal and public importance of pedagogical work and who are prepared to take responsibility for its outcomes; • defines the quality of the specialists and their professional preparation for supporting social stability and facilitating the development of society. The most urgent problems to be solved in teacher education in Russia include: strengthening the practical orientation of professional training; promoting the deployment of resources to support the educational process and research activities; the development of a flexible system for updating educational programmes that meet the needs of the market; bringing the system of professional pedagogical training in line with the latest developments in pedagogical theory and practice. In this chapter, we firstly cover the features of the pedagogical corps of Russia, that is the teaching workforce, in the context of the most recent Teaching and Learning International Survey – TALIS-2018. Then we examine some of the challenges and problems in teacher education in Russia. In the third part, we offer a forecast of scenarios for the future development of the teacher education system in Russia.

178  Ilshat Gafurov and Roza Valeeva

The features of the pedagogical corps of Russia in the context of TALIS-2018 To understand the contemporary development trends in the modern teacher education system, it is necessary to review the features of the pedagogical corps of Russia. The evolution of the demographic characteristics of the Russian teacher corps can be viewed as a reaction to the global challenges of the 21st century information-rich society. A tool which may assist with this analysis is the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). How do Russian teachers appear in the mirror of the international research TALIS2018? TALIS is the largest and most authoritative international study of teachers and school principals in the world. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conducts it to collect and collate information about teachers and school principals from different countries in such key areas as: training and professional development of teachers and school principals; assessment of the quality of their work; peculiarities of school management; beliefs and attitudes of teachers and teaching methods; job satisfaction, confidence in their professional abilities; the contexts in which teachers and principals work. The Russian Federation has been participating in the survey since 2008 and in 2018 participated in the survey along with 47 other countries. The Russian sample of the study included more than 4,000 teachers from 230 general education organisations in 14 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. From each general education organisation, no more than 20 subject teachers, teaching in grades 5–9, filled out the questionnaire. The participation of the director was mandatory for each educational organisation included in the sample (TALIS, 2018). The results of the TALIS-2018 study make it possible to characterise the composition of the teaching corps in Russia. Almost half (47%) of teachers in the Russian Federation are in the middle age band, from 30 to 49 years old. The share of teachers of pre-retirement and retirement age, from 50 to 59 years old, is 42%, which is more than the average for countries in the study. In the Russian Federation, there is also a growth of the number of the school graduates entering the teacher education programmes, which indicates the growth of the attractiveness of the teaching profession. At the same time, in the Russian Federation, there is an imbalance between the level of wages and the size of the pension, which keeps a high proportion of older teachers in the profession. 91% of Russian teachers have received pedagogical education at the level of bachelor’s, master’s, and specialist’s degrees. While receiving professional education, Russian teachers were trained in a wide range of subjects, but less often combined teaching of several subjects than, on average, survey participants from other countries. Russian teachers turn out to be more experienced than most of their colleagues from other countries: according to the survey, the length of service of a Russian teacher is on average 21 years, which is five years more than the average for the study as a whole (TALIS, 2018). The authors of the TALIS-2018 study make well-grounded conclusions that although one can observe a slight decrease in the rate of rejuvenation

Where next for Russian teacher education?  179 of the contingent of teachers relative to the study of the previous cycle, young people going to school share the high value of the mission of the teaching profession. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the opportunities for professional development, especially for young teachers. The tasks of attracting young people to work in schools and raising the status of the teaching profession in society are highly relevant for the Russian education system. A number of measures aimed at achieving this are envisaged within the framework of the national project ‘Education’ (2019–2024)1 and one of its components, the federal project ‘Teacher of the Future’,2 which gives hope for a radical change in the situation in the near future. Another significant conclusion from the TALIS-2018 study concerns teacher education. In the past few years in Russia, a number of areas have been implemented and continue to be implemented related to raising the level of professionalism of teachers, modernising the system of training and advanced training of teachers, as well as professional assessment of teachers. In 2013, the Teacher Professional Standard (2013) was adopted and to date has been significantly improved several times. From 2014 to 2017, a project to modernise teacher education was implemented, as a result of which the principles for the formation of teacher training programs were developed considerably (Margolis & Safronova, 2018). In addition, in accordance with the List of Instructions of the President of the Russian Federation, a national system for teacher growth (NSTG) is being formed in Russia (Action Plan…, 2017). It should also be noted that since 2016, at the initiative of Rosobrnadzor (Russian Education Superintendence Committee), several studies of the level of professional competence of teachers in various subjects have been carried out, the results of which identified a number of problems, including with subject training. The research conducted, on the one hand, addresses a number of problems with training and professional development of teachers, and on the other hand, it allows for the expansion of the range of data on the basis of which certain decisions can be made. According to the sociologists, one of the important stages in the practical implementation of these areas should be a modern system for assessing the professional level of teachers, implemented both at the end of training and on entering the profession, and at certification for qualification categories. Such an assessment should ensure the formation of a real competence profile in accordance with the current version of professional standards, as well as, if necessary, provide an opportunity for the flexible construction of advanced training and professional support programmes to address the identified deficiencies.

Challenges and problems of teacher education in Russia At the beginning of 2019, the results of the study of the subjective assessment of the teacher education modernisation effectiveness in the Russian Federation in the period from 1999 to 2018 were published. It was organised by the Research Centre for Vocational Education and Qualifications

180  Ilshat Gafurov and Roza Valeeva Systems of the Federal Institute for the Development of Education of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation. Direct participants in the modernisation processes, employees of universities and colleges implementing programs teacher education, became the respondents of the study. The study covered 362 educational organisations representing 55 constituent entities of the Russian Federation (all federal districts were represented). 41% of the respondents were representatives of administrative personnel, the rest were teachers (40%), methodologists, specialists (13%), industrial training masters (4%). About 1/3 of the sample consisted of educational organisations implementing teacher education programs, of which 54% were universities and 46% were teacher training colleges. Most of the questions on the modernisation of teacher education were addressed exclusively to employees of organisations that implement teacher education programs (Blinov & Sergeev, 2019). One of the objectives of the study was to identify problems that hinder the effective functioning and development of the Russian system of teacher education. Among the most acute problems, the respondents named those related to the general nature of the changes being made in the Russian education system, and not directly related to the specifics of the modernisation of teacher education. Each of these problems was identified in their answers by at least two thirds of the respondents. The first place in the rating is taken by the position ‘Excess of formal reporting and other “paperwork” that distracts teachers from their main activities’, which was chosen by four out of every five respondents. The second place belongs to the position ‘Constant processes of modernization (reorganization, reforming), which do not allow consolidating the changes that have been made and focusing on improving the real quality of education’, which was noted by two out of every three respondents. About one third of the respondents identified moderately acute problems: ‘Organizational and substantive-methodological disunity of the system of continuing professional education in the region (pedagogical colleges, pedagogical universities, institutes for advanced training/educational development)’; ‘Insufficient compliance of the Federal State Educational Standard in the areas (specialties) of pedagogical training with modern requirements for a school teacher’ (33% of the questionnaires); ‘Insufficient information and methodological support of pedagogical education in the country’ (30%). Weakly expressed problems were named in approximately every fourth questionnaire: ‘Decrease in the level of scientific research in domestic pedagogical science’; ‘Two-level teacher training at the university (bachelor’s, master’s), which does not meet the specifics of pedagogical education’; ‘Difficulties in organizing internships for students’ (24% of the questionnaires). Practically not expressed problems were noted in less than a fifth of the responses: ‘Shortcomings in the qualifications of the teaching staff (professors and teaching staff), the lack of actual experience of teachers in a modern secondary school’; ‘Insufficient quality of the Teacher’s professional

Where next for Russian teacher education?  181 standard (pedagogical activity in preschool, primary general, basic general, secondary general education) (educator, teacher) ‘as a source of expected results of teacher education’; ‘Insufficient quality of the professional standard “Teacher of vocational education, vocational training, additional vocational education” as the basis for building modern activities of the teaching staff of the university/teaching staff of the college.’ One of the most pressing problems in the system of teacher education is the undoubted complexity of preparing teachers for the real conditions of educational practice, for constantly emerging new challenges of pedagogical reality. This general problem can be reduced to a complex of interrelated, more specific, but at the same time no less significant problems for teacher education: • difficulties in updating and applying the knowledge gained by future teachers; • unstructured knowledge data, lack of holistic ideas about professional pedagogical activity, its object, subject, educational process; • preparation of student teachers for solving practical problems of professional activity is carried out unsystematically and mainly at a narrow methodological level; • excessive technologization, an abundance of methodological prescriptions and, as a result, the actual failure of the creative component of the teacher’s professional training; • unpreparedness of teachers to develop their own strategies and decision-making tactics in situations of professional activity, taking into account the specific conditions of the current situation and aimed at achieving optimal results; • lack of a holistic methodological base of teacher education that integrates the most productive ideas, principles, methods of activity, on the basis of which a comprehensive professional training of teachers should take into account all the diversity of educational work. At the same time, the Russian system of teacher education has its own advantages. One of them is centralised and unified approach to teacher education on a nationwide scale. This system was established in the Soviet period. However, the active liberalization process in education took place in Russia in recent decades. So, regarding teacher education, it is reflected in the introduction of market relations, transforming education into a service, development of a new type of higher education institutions, which prepare teachers. Still the key mechanism for determining policy, content, and assessment in the teacher education sphere is under the control of the Federal Ministry of Education. The Ministry approves Federal state educational standards for every teacher majors, for bachelor, master, and PhD degrees. It determines the content, design, requirements, duration as well as legal, technical, medical, and other conditions for implementation of teacher training programs in all Russian universities (Valeeva & Kalimullin, 2019).

182  Ilshat Gafurov and Roza Valeeva

Scenarios for the development of the teacher education system in Russia The future scenario for the development of the teacher education system in Russia is moving in the direction of a binary structure, which includes a core of 33 state pedagogical universities and more than 200 other higher educational institutions of various types. It is indicative of their division into two departments in 2020: the first passed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, the second remained subordinate to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Another scenario is a counter path, recognising the final destruction of the monopoly of traditional pedagogical universities and the formation of a diversified system of teacher training in universities of various types. This will lead to the formation of groups of higher education institutions around university leaders representing different models of teacher training. The principle of inclusion in such groups will be the conditions for the implementation of teacher education programs in universities of various types, their goals, and preferences. This should entail the preparation of new Federal State Higher Education Standards for teacher training for such groups and a departure from the traditional unification that has been preserved since the Soviet era. This will not change the key principles and content of teacher training in the country. The only difference is that the first scenario assumes the preservation of the traditional system of teacher training with minor changes in the structure of universities with the dominant support of the federal Ministry of Higher Education and Science. The second option also presupposes the preservation of state support with the introduction of elements of market competition for state orders, resources, and additional income to the university deriving from those students who pay for their education. It is difficult to predict the future development of the teacher education system in Russia. On the one hand, the absence of major educational reforms in the last decade and the traditional caution of the Russian government in this area suggest the likelihood of the first scenario prevailing (Zagvyazinsky, Plotnikov, & Volosnikova, 2014). Nevertheless, in the conditions of the growing shortage of teachers, requiring the introduction of alternative ways of entering the profession, reality will dictate the need to create a variable system in Russia, involving the participation of universities of various types. This will entail variability in the content of educational programs based not only on the specifics, conditions, resources of a particular university, but also on the tasks facing the university at the federal or regional level. For example, a shortage of teachers in a particular region of the country can lead to the emergence of facilitated and accelerated teacher training programs, the introduction of online programs, and new forms of recruiting into the profession. This is a trend that is gaining popularity in many countries with teacher shortages. In our opinion, as an international trend, it will manifest itself in Russia. Assuming such a possible development, it is important at the present stage to develop a forecast for the development of the teacher education system

Where next for Russian teacher education?  183 in the country. Over the more than 200 year history of professional training of teachers in Russia, there have been repeated transformations of the teacher education system caused by political and socio-economic factors. Today, we are once again on the verge of such dramatic changes associated with global and national challenges facing humanity. In conditions when today’s young people will determine the strategy for the development of education in 10–20 years, it is necessary to analyze history, current trends, forecasts, and hypotheses that could scientifically explain modern processes with their projection into the future. Such studies could inform such discussions, in trying to model possible ways of developing teacher education in the country. With regard to Russia, this is actualised by the search for answers to the following issues: • The impact of political initiatives on education, in particular the future prospects for liberalising education • The influence of economic factors on education, in particular, the maintenance of state support in this area or the introduction of market mechanisms. • The need to decentralise teacher education following the example of a number of countries around the world with the transition of most functions to the regional level, or the preservation of federal regulation and control over teacher training. It can be assumed that the organizational design of the teacher education system by 2025 will clearly distinguish between several types of higher education institutions offering teacher training programs. Differences between specialised pedagogical universities and higher educational institutions of other types may lead to the emergence of a binary system and even the re-emergence of the concept of ‘provider in the field of teacher education’, completely unthinkable for modern Russia. During 2020, the issue of the duration of primary teacher training for work at school was being actively discussed. After the transition to a multi-level vocational training system in accordance with the Bologna Agreement, a four-year bachelor’s degree was considered sufficient for teaching at school. In the opinion of school principals, in comparison with the Soviet system of training teachers for a five-year specialisation, this period is insufficient to ensure innovation, complexity, variability, dynamism, practice-oriented professional training of pedagogical personnel, and raise it to a qualitatively new level. On 5 November 2020, at a meeting of the Russian Language Council, Russian President Vladimir Putin questioned the advisability of a two-stage higher education system for Russian language teachers. The head of state admitted that he does not yet have a final opinion on this issue, noting that bachelor’s and master’s degrees are a good way to train individual specialists, for example, in cybernetics. In turn, the Minister of Education Olga Vasilyeva also stated that teachers in Russia need to be trained according

184  Ilshat Gafurov and Roza Valeeva to five-year specialty programs, since the bachelor’s degree is not enough. However, it should be borne in mind that a return to specialisation may have an effect if the added year is spent on practice at school. Adding a year of study to introduce additional subjects into the curriculum will not bring the desired effect. According to Yefim Rachevsky, director of the Tsaritsyno Moscow education center No. 548, it is ideal if after the bachelor’s degree the graduate has worked at school for two years, and then s/he chooses the master’s degree at a conscious level, because s/he feels a lack of competencies. This experience already exists in the Russian education system. For example, with a specialty at the Moscow City Pedagogical University (MGPU), senior students had an internship at school for a whole year, only after that they went out to defend their diploma. The rector of MGPU Igor Remorenko believes that the existing system is more efficient and flexible, but it should be prepared according to a three-level model. According to him, the bachelor’s degree provides general training and allows the student to navigate whether s/he is really interested in working at school and is fascinated by his pedagogical education, or, perhaps, s/he is interested in a more general system of working with people, for example, in consulting, client-oriented services, and so on, where teaching skills are also required. The master’s degree allows more deeply mastering any pedagogical skills, if a person has already worked, and s/he understood what is really interesting for her/him. In addition, this model allows those whose basic education is not pedagogical, to build up the already required pedagogical competencies in the master’s program. The specialty, on the other hand, rigidly directs students to work at school (Is it necessary to return…, 2019). The uniqueness of teacher education is in the fact that the process of training such specialists leads to a serious restructuring of the educational process, all university divisions, and the university infrastructure. First of all, this leads to the expansion of partnerships, business relations of the university, the active use of information technologies, and most importantly – to the strengthening of the educational process itself with scientific research. In these conditions, the focus of pedagogical education on the continuous development of the abilities and needs of the individual, in providing each person with the opportunity to implement their own educational program, becomes especially relevant. Training and lifelong learning are essential elements of the education system. The creation of a continuous, flexible, intensive, multi-level education system is becoming a priority of our time. In modern conditions, great importance is attached to the development of the system of continuous teacher education. In the Russian Federation, the process of modernisation of lifelong teacher education is carried out within the framework of the national initiative ‘Our New School’3 and the introduction of new Federal state educational standards for general education. Teachers and students, future teachers, working in various educational institutions, become not only the performers of the main tasks of modernisation, but also its active developers,

Where next for Russian teacher education?  185 since in the conditions of uncertainty characterising the search for a new quality of education, they design, ‘grow’ new knowledge about education, and build new educational policy. As a result of this integration of science and educational activities, teacher education itself becomes a ‘learner’, effectively contributing to the creation of ‘learning communities’ in the modern world as prototypes of future ‘learning nations’. The development of the system of lifelong education necessitates the creation of conditions for the formation of flexible educational trajectories and will ensure the reaction of the education system to the dynamically changing needs of the individual, society, and the economy. A modern school is in need not so much of a subject teacher as of a universal teacher who, at the level of basic education, is able to present children with a comprehensive picture of the world, to give integrated knowledge, while focusing on the student as a unique, individual person who needs not so much to be taught according to the model, the standard, or stereotypes, but to achieve personal intellectual development. Therefore, the system of lifelong teacher education should be multilevel, aimed at ensuring dynamism, flexibility of training, its fundamental nature, and universality. In this case, the training of personnel in the system of lifelong teacher education will become targeted, focused on the specific needs of educational organisations of all types, subjects of the educational services market, while maintaining the freedom of choice by the individual of their educational trajectory, strengthening the practical orientation of education. The development of teacher education is inevitably connected with the prospects for the development of education in general. In May 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin set a task to bring Russia to the top ten countries in terms of education quality by 2024. Such a bar is set in the decree he signed ‘On national goals and strategic objectives for the development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2024’.4 The text of the decree also lists ten main tasks in the field of education, which must be resolved by 2024. In particular, we are talking about the introduction of new methods of teaching and upbringing at the levels of basic general and secondary general education, educational technologies that ensure mastering of basic skills and abilities by students, increasing their motivation for learning and involvement in the educational process, as well as updating the content and improving teaching methods in the subject area ‘Technology’. An effective system for identifying, supporting, and developing the abilities and talents of children and young people should be formed, based on the principles of justice, universality and aimed at self-determination and professional orientation of all students. It is also necessary to create conditions for the early development of children under the age of three, and to implement a programme of psychological, pedagogical, methodological, and advisory assistance to parents of children receiving preschool education in the family. In addition, the decree presupposes the creation of a modern and safe digital educational environment that ensures high quality and accessibility of education of all types and levels. At least 50% of teachers of general

186  Ilshat Gafurov and Roza Valeeva education organisations should be involved in the national system of professional development of teachers. Professional education should be modernised, including through the introduction of adaptive, practice-oriented, and flexible educational programs. In this regard, the problem arises of creating sustainable organisational, regulatory, and financial instruments that ensure the functioning of the ecosystem of the reproduction of teaching staff. An important factor to consider when determining the future of teacher education is the digital revolution. The report of the Centre for Strategic Research and the Higher School of Economics ‘Twelve Solutions for New Education’ compares the digital revolution of the 21st century with the advent of printing and the mass school (Twelve solutions…, 2018). Digital technologies make it possible to overcome traditional familiar limitations – the presence in the classroom of children with different speed of mastering the program, the impossibility, or limited choice of a teacher at school or a teacher at a university. Thus, digital technologies make it possible to ensure the individualisation of the educational trajectory for each student, methods (forms) and the pace of mastering educational material. For a qualitative restructuring of the school in the digital age, it is necessary to achieve a genuine cognitive interest of schoolchildren through the widespread use of game and design technologies, both digital and traditional. The explosive growth of available information creates a cognitive challenge that will require constant search and selection of interesting content and high processing speeds. Cognitive transformation puts educational organisations in the forefront of the need to find a reliable core of educational content. In this context, the education system must learn to use new technological tools and practically unlimited information resources. The practice of online courses and blended learning creates an almost limitless field of educational opportunities. All this forms the preconditions for the growth of the quality of education for literally every person, regardless of where exactly s/he lives and studies, as well as what her/his interests and opportunities are. These changes will require qualitatively new qualifications from teachers and school principals. But they will create unprecedented incentives and opportunities for young teachers or specialists from other fields who will choose teaching professions. The field of education is likely to become one of the most prestigious and attractive areas of work and career. The report of the Centre for Strategic Research and the Higher School of Economics emphasises that the requirements for the professional role of teachers and educators are changing. The functions of the organiser of educational, project, and research activities and educational practices, consultant, researcher, project manager, ‘navigator’ in the educational, including digital, environment come to the fore. Meanwhile, despite the significant strengthening of the personnel potential of the education system, a significant number of teachers and school principals do not show initiative and do not renew their competencies. This is due to the formality and underfunding of advanced training programs, with a weak practical orientation in the training of young teachers. The effectiveness of any project in the field

Where next for Russian teacher education?  187 of education depends on the motivation and competencies of those who teach or organise educational activities (including the independent activities of schoolchildren and students). Therefore, in each aspect of the education system development, not only massive retraining of personnel is needed to master specific new competencies, but also special support for networking, leadership projects, innovations, and initiatives of teachers, teachers, educational organisations. This will require: • retraining of the management teams of all educational organisations; development and implementation of certification procedures for teachers mastering digital technologies and resources, methods of overcoming educational failure, methods of developing interest and motivation, as well as methods of forming universal competencies; • development and implementation of high-tech teacher education programs with an enhanced practical component; • creation of a system of postgraduate methodological support for young teachers and an internship program for young teachers in the best educational institutions and on the basis of leading universities; • grant support for the professional development of teachers and managers in each region aimed at introducing innovations, improving the quality of education, and promoting within the framework of the national teacher growth system. When determining the strategy for the further development of teaching staff, it is necessary to keep in mind the existing gap between the rapidly changing requirements for the education system and the insufficient speed of changes in the system of training and retraining of teaching staff, which should ensure compliance with these requirements. To achieve the goal of fundamentally improving the quality of teaching staff, it is necessary to take into account the following key problems: 1. Insufficient amount of modern interdisciplinary research on childhood problems and issues of teaching and upbringing of children and adolescents, including the analysis of data on the system of teacher education. This leads to a gap between the content and technologies of teacher training, modern practice of pedagogical activity, and its anticipatory tasks. 2. Insufficient level of Russian scientists’ involvement in international comparative research, allowing for the correlation of the current state of pedagogical science and education in Russia with the leading world trends. This creates problems in the formation of a long-term strategy for the development of teacher education in the context of globalisation of the world, does not allow for a full understanding of the specifics and role of the Russian experience in teacher training in the global context, does not provide an opportunity to take into account both best practices and negative trends in foreign countries.

188  Ilshat Gafurov and Roza Valeeva 3. Not all regions have a strategy for staffing the field of teacher education and long-term planning of teacher training. The consequence is an imbalance in the age structure of teaching staff (a high proportion of teachers of retirement age (19%), a shortage of younger teachers with work experience (30–40 years old), the lack of mechanisms for ‘leaving the profession’ and retention in the profession, a significant proportion of teachers with secondary vocational education (in preschool organisations – 46%, in schools – 15%). 4. At the regional level, there is a lack of authority to effectively implement the tasks facing of teacher training institutions, with responsibility for the universities being with the federal Ministry of Education, while the regional ministries are responsible for the secondary vocational colleges. The annual replacement of the teaching staff reaching retirement age should be about 52 thousand people, while in 2017 the graduation of bachelors in pedagogical areas amounted to 69 thousand people, in 2018 – 72.8 thousand people, in 2019 – 73.2 thousand people, and teachers with secondary vocational education – 37 thousand people annually. This gives rise to a low share of employment, an oversupply of the training system and ineffective use of funds are recorded. 5. Departmental dissociation of the Russian Ministry of Higher Education and Science and the Russian Ministry of Education, on the one hand, makes it possible to create the unified system of teacher education including the general, secondary, and higher education institutions under the responsibility of one Ministry. On the other hand, the Universities left under the responsibility of the Ministry of Higher Education and Science are left behind this process. This situation does not allow building a single vertical axis of research and training. 6. The continuing substantive and organisational gap between the systems of secondary vocational and higher pedagogical education (Nikolaeva, Golikov, & Barakhsanova, 2014; Khromenkov, 2015; Fominykh, 2015; Bermous, 2015). In order to address these problems, the following tasks become paramount: 1. Creation of world-class centers for teacher education (solving research problems, developing new advanced strategies and technologies for teacher education, adapting the best world practices), based on the interaction of leading universities that train pedagogical personnel, institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Education. There should be about 5–7 of them. It is advisable to combine the centers into a consortium, delegating key tasks for the development of the creation and development of methodology, strategies, and modern pedagogical didactics. 2. Development of a modern model of teacher training based on a modular principle that meets the objectives of achieving national goals, possibly

Where next for Russian teacher education?  189 within the framework of the development of the fourth version of the Federal State Professional Standard on teacher education. 3. Creation of a system of long-term planning of teaching staff training, including the transition from targeted admission to targeted training, a system of measures to identify and select pedagogically gifted and motivated applicants. 4. Development of a special programme for teachers of retirement age to leave the profession with the replacement of about 30 percent of teachers by young personnel within three years. The events are launched in parallel with the certification of teachers and the introduction of a new remuneration system. 5. Creation of a system of professional certification (independent assessment of the quality of training) for graduates of teacher education programs. 6. Creation of a mechanism for professional accreditation of educational programs by regional education authorities. 7. Increasing the requirements for the basic level of training of teachers – not less than a bachelor’s degree or applied bachelor’s degree. Providing the possibility of a smooth transition from the secondary vocational system to the higher education system according to the 2 + 2 model by matching curricula and programmes based on a competency plan. 8. Introduction of mechanisms for the professional development of teachers based on the provision of personal certificates for advanced training, including for the system of secondary vocational and higher teacher education (modern cognitive science, theory and practice of effective educational technologies, interdisciplinary research). 9. Development of a Russian digital platform that accumulates the modern practice of the teacher education system. 10. Establishing a connection between the teacher education system and the business community participating in the development and implementation of educational programs of various orientations. 11. Generalisation and dissemination of the best Russian and international experience in attracting and retaining graduates of pedagogical universities, the formation of a new effective system for recruiting teachers of different ages, adaptive to the changed socio-economic conditions on the basis of a combination of federal, regional, and municipal mechanisms. 12. Development of a regulatory and scientific-methodological framework for variable (lateral) entrances to the teaching profession for various categories of people with higher education, taking into account the regional characteristics of the labor market and the potential of universities.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have identified some scenarios and made suggestions about the future development of teacher education in Russia. Initially, we analyzed the results of the international study TALIS-2018, which made it possible to identify the most characteristic features of the teaching corps

190  Ilshat Gafurov and Roza Valeeva in Russia. According to a survey conducted among 4,000 teachers from 14 regions of Russia, we noted a steady trend towards retaining a large number of teachers over 50 and no increase in the number of young teachers compared to the results of the TALIS-2013 study. In the next 10 years, there may be a sharp retirement of retired teachers, while university graduates will not be able to replace them all. Young teachers tend not to stay in school. Therefore, the problem of developing and implementing adaptation programs for young teachers in the first years of work at school arises. These measures are proposed in the federal project ‘Teacher of the Future’. Improving the professionalism of teachers is also important. This goal is being addressed in the process of introducing the national system for teacher growth (NSTG) in Russia. Further in the chapter, challenges and problems of teacher education in Russia are revealed. Based on research conducted by the Research Center for Vocational Education and Qualifications Systems of the Federal Institute for the Development of Education of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, we have identified the most pressing problems facing teacher education, which were named by teachers of pedagogical universities and colleges. The state of modern pedagogical education evokes fair criticism in many areas. Among them is the unsatisfactory quality of the recruitment of applicants for pedagogical specialisms. Graduates of the university either do not start working in the field of education at all, or, after working there for a short time, leave it. Graduates are poorly adapted to the emerging requirements for modern education, its methods, and technologies. In teacher training, theoretical teaching methods prevail over practical ones. The theory of teacher education lags behind the needs of school practice. A teacher cannot always quickly act as an assistant for children, as an intelligent mentor, rather than as a translator of knowledge. It is especially difficult for a young teacher. In terms of transformations, higher education does not meet the new needs of the reformed and modernised general education school and vocational education. Students are poorly prepared for pedagogical communication, for live communication with pupils (the problem is aggravated in connection with the development of computerisation). Today, pedagogical education does not keep up with the dynamics of the development of the school, which is attended by teachers who are trained, as a rule, only theoretically, and already at their workplaces they have to ‘finish learning’ in practical terms, cooperate with children, draw up documentation, conduct self-analysis of the lesson, etc. Added to these problems are the overloading of teachers by filling out all kinds of documentation and reports, the inconsistency of the federal state standard with modern requirements for the school teacher. Based on the characteristics of these problems, we have proposed possible scenarios for the development of teacher education in Russia. At the same time, we recognise that this is a rather difficult task in the context of the division of departmental responsibility for institutions that provide teacher

Where next for Russian teacher education?  191 education in Russia. The first possible scenario is the preservation of traditional teacher education with minimal changes in the content and teaching methods. The second scenario assumes the development of market mechanisms for the implementation of state policies for teacher training. The architecture of the teacher education system in Russia, in our opinion, will continue to include a variety of educational institutions. The length of teacher education is also a matter of debate. Proposals are being put forward to return teacher training programs to the five-year term that existed in the Soviet Union. However, there is no consensus on this issue. An undergraduate teacher training program can provide general foundations for teacher training, while a graduate degree can provide opportunities for preparing teachers for specific school settings. In this regard, the problem of continuous pedagogical education arises. Currently, the development of teacher education is planned within the framework of the project ‘Teacher of the Future’ of the national project ‘Education’ (2019–2024). It is extremely important to ensure the continuity of all stages of the development of teacher education. Therefore, one of the key areas of work on further improvement of higher pedagogical education will be the development and implementation of the Programme for the development of pedagogical education for the period up to 2024. Carrying out any systemic changes in education presupposes the value coordination of various stakeholders, which is especially important in the light of the recent transfer of specialised pedagogical universities to the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.


1 https://edu.gov.ru/national-project 2 https://futurerussia.gov.ru/ucitel-budusego 3 https://base.garant.ru/6744437/ 4 http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/57425

References Action Plan (“road map”) for the formation and implementation of a National Teacher Growth System (2017). https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/ doc/71641920/ Bermous, A. (2015). Conceptual problems at the modern phase of teacher education modernization in Russia. Nepreryvnoye obrazovaniye: XXI vek – Continuing Education: XXI Century, 2(10), 1–12. Blinov, V. I., & Sergeev, V. S. (2019). Modernization of teacher education: Dialectics of results. Pedagogika - Pedagogics, 83(11), 5–24. Fominykh, M. V. (2015). Some conditions for the successful development of teacher education in Russia. Obrazovaniye i vospitaniye – Education and Upbringing, 3(3), 20–22. Retrieved from August 12, 2020, from https://moluch.ru/th/4/ archive/9/166/ Is it necessary to return to specialization in teacher training? Gazeta pedagogov Newspaper of teachers. Retrieved from November 11, 2019, from https://gazeta-pedagogov.ru/neobhodimo-li-vernutsya-k-spetsialitetu-pri-podgotovke-pedagogov/

192  Ilshat Gafurov and Roza Valeeva Khromenkov, P. A. (2015). Higher educational teacher education in Russia: Contemporary state and prospects of development. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovania – Modern Problems of Science and Education, no. 2, part 1. https:// science-education.ru/en/article/view?id=21297. Margolis, A. A., & Safronova, M. A. (2018). The project of modernisation of Teacher Education in the Russian Federation: Outcomes 2014–2017. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie -Psychological Science and Education, 23(1), 5–24. doi:10.17759/pse.2018230101 Nikolaeva, A. D., Golikov A. I., Barakhsanova, E. A. (2014). Strategic priorities for the modernization of the system of continuing teacher education. Sovremennyye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya – Modern Problems of Science and Education, 4. Retrieved from August 12, 2020, from http://science-education.ru/ru/article/ view?id=14206 TALIS (2018). Report on the results of the International research of the teaching staff on teaching and learning TALIS-2018 (2019). https://fioco.ru/ Media/Default/Documents/TALIS/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0 %BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20 %D0%BE%D1%82%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%20TALIS-2018.pdf The Teacher Professional Standard (2013). http://www.rosmintrud.ru/docs/ mintrud/orders/129/ Twelve solutions for new education. Report of the Centre for Strategic Research and the Higher School of Economics (2018). Moscow: NRU HSE https://www.hse. ru/data/2018/04/06/1164671180/Doklad_obrazovanie_Web.pdf Valeeva, R., & Kalimullin, A. (2019). Teacher Education in Russia. In Jo Lampert (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. New York: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.446 Zagvyazinsky, V. I., Plotnikov, L. D., & Volosnikova, L. M. (2014). Potential development strategy of pedagogic education in Russia and its potential development strategy. Innovative Projects and Programs in Education, 4, 3–9.

8 Russian teacher education in the global context Roza Valeeva and Ian Menter

Introduction In the context of reforms in Russian education, a comprehensive analysis of the development of teacher education on a global, national, and local scale acquires special significance. Building a progressive concept of Russian teacher education requires the development of special mechanisms for its reform, taking into account strategic national interests and an objective assessment of trends characteristic of the development of similar educational structures in other countries. Innovation and reform in teacher education have become pressing issues both in Russia and across the globe, and their purposes and goals need to be reconsidered in accordance with current and future contexts. Questions arising from this include: the intersection and connection between the modernisation of education more broadly and the transformation of society as a whole; how the system of initial teacher education (ITE) should be reformed in order to achieve new goals and what we can expect from teacher education amidst all the changes that are taking place in Russia and internationally. Some answers to these questions can be found in the research of teacher educators from around the world which have informed the thinking and approach adopted in Russia in recent years (Peters, Cowie, & Menter, 2017; Tatto & Menter, 2019). In recent years, ITE has often been considered a panacea that will address the effectiveness and improvement of education across the board, including teaching and learning in schools. International literature describes the reform processes in ITE taking place in different countries (Tatto, 2007; Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 2012). There are also contradictions in the process of reconstruction in international ITE. On the one hand, there is a trend connected with giving a Master’s level degree to future secondary school teachers (for example, in Finland, France, Malta, and Portugal). On the other hand, there are shortened ITE programmes in the UK, USA, and Australia. In Russia, as earlier chapters in the present volume have shown, it is even more complicated: secondary school teachers may have both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees. Russian society has undergone and continues to experience, political, socio-economic, and spiritual transformations in recent decades and as a consequence it has become critical

194  Roza Valeeva and Ian Menter to rethink the ways of increasing the effectiveness of education. As part of this, teacher education has a special place and fundamental role in the modernisation of Russia’s education system. The chapter begins with a discussion of the impacts of globalisation in education. The next part is devoted to the issues of teacher professionalism and the rise of standards in teacher education. The third part considers the possible ways of assuring appropriate variability and flexibility in higher teacher education in Russia. The fourth part reviews the positioning of research and practice in teacher education. Some exemplification of these matters is drawn from contemporary developments at Kazan Federal University.

Globalisation and its impacts in education Globalisation is a difficult term to define tightly. In many ways, this reflects the complexity of understanding human activity on a very large scale. During the late 20th century, the emphasis in globalisation debates tended to be on the economic sphere, when it was increasingly recognised how interdependent different parts of the world were in terms of trade, commerce, and industry (Held & McGrew, 2007; Gray, 1998). Against the background of the globalisation of the world economy, the creation of numerous international political and public organisations, and global information networks, contemporary global problems that threaten the very existence of mankind are aggravated. These include environmental problems (depletion of the ozone layer, pollution of the seas and oceans, the extinction of certain representatives of flora and fauna, depletion of natural resources, etc.), social problems (demographic problems, ethnic conflicts, crisis of culture and morality, etc.), and also nuclear threat and terrorism. In the context of the study of world trends in the development of modern society, globalisation, integration, and internationalisation are major factors. Scientists around the world are studying these processes associated with significant technological and social changes in the last quarter of the 20th century (e.g. Castells, 2000). A wide range of new tasks, actualised in the national education in connection with the entry into the world educational space, dictates the need for a deep study of a number of pedagogical aspects of globalisation. The processes of globalisation and internationalisation cover all spheres of human life, including education (Carnoy, 2000; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Spring, 2015; Sorensen & Dumay, in press). One of the most important globalisation processes in Russia is its entry into the European educational space. This process must be comprehended and strategically defined, taking into account the general strategy of Russia in relation to globalisation. From the moment of Russia's accession to the Bologna process, the problems associated with the European system of harmonisation of education have been frequently discussed. The B ­ ologna Process and the European Higher Education Area formed on its basis became a response to the processes of globalisation of the modern world, as well as

Russian teacher education in the global context  195 the processes of European integration. The internationalisation of education raises the question of the relationship between international and national components in education. Russian education is based on cultural and pedagogical national traditions and priorities, has deep historical roots, and its formation took place taking into account the Russian mentality (Lanina, 2012). In this regard, all transformations should take place gradually and taking into account the values and educational priorities of Russians. The processes of change may thus be seen as a case of what Rizvi and Lingard (2010) have called 'vernacular globalisation’ (see also, Menter, 2018). The globalisation process has thus exacerbated old and created new problems in the field of education. Together with the leading countries of the world, Russia began the transformation of the national educational system, focused on universalisation, unification, standardisation, and ultimately integration, the overall impetus of which was to impart new properties of openness to education (Lebedeva, 2017). All these processes have affected teacher education as well (Valeeva & Kalimullin, 2019).

Teacher professionalism and the rise of standards One of the key elements of Sahlberg’s concept of the ‘GERM’ – the Global Education Reform Movement – is the spread around education systems of accountability measures (Sahlberg, 2010). These take many forms in schools, including heavy reliance on assessments of pupil performance, but they also reach into most teacher education systems, in some way or other. Korea provides one example of the most developed accountability systems for teachers and teacher education (Pippin & Jin, 2019). Most frequently, in teacher education, such approaches are very visibly manifested through the adoption or imposition of a series of published standards that define what it is a teacher should know and be able to do. Teaching standards have indeed spread around the world like an epidemic and so, although the details of what is regarded as important in each setting may vary to some extent, the idea that the quality of teaching should be judged against an observable set of behaviours and knowledge has become commonplace. A look at international contexts indicates that in many countries (including USA, England, Scotland, Australia, France, and Germany) a particular list of competences for teachers and teacher education has been identified (Hammerness, Tartwijk, & Snoek, 2012; Hulme & Menter, 2008; Menter & Hulme, 2011; Page, 2015; Struyven & De Meyst, 2010; Townsend, 2011). According to Menter and Hulme (2011), Scottish standards are related to the traditional values of teacher professionalism there. Whitty (2014, p. 471) calls the new teaching standards in England “an official ‘national’ professionalism.” That government’s White Paper The Importance of Teaching (DfE, 2010) introduced the so-called ‘craft’ model of teaching, prioritising practical skills for classroom work. The Scottish model with a markedly wider view of teachers’ role in the classroom is presented in the report Teaching Scotland’s Future (Donaldson, 2010). In Portugal, the introduction of standards was linked

196  Roza Valeeva and Ian Menter to teacher performance assessment. They were defined in 2001 by the Ministry of Education. Up until 2010, the debates were centred on issues such as competencies, the professional profile, and key dimensions of the teaching profession. But in October 2012, the standards were abolished by the government elected in 2011 and were replaced by national parameters that became the reference for teachers’ performance assessment (Flores, 2012). At a similar date, parallel developments were occurring in Russia. The ‘Teacher professional standard’ was approved by the order № 544н of the Ministry of Labour of the Russian Federation “On the approval of the professional standard “Teacher (teacher activities in the field of preschool, initial general, basic general, secondary general education) (educator, teacher, tutor)” (Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation, 2013). This document is the first in the history of the teacher education in Russia determining the prospective requirements for the personality, competences, and abilities of the teacher. Issues of teacher professionalism had been researched in Russian pedagogy long before the teacher professional standard was adopted. There has been a range of approaches to the study of the teacher professional development in Russia. Some researchers (Slastenin, 1976; Panova, 2009) considered professional development from the standpoint of the personality of the teacher, others (Kuzmina, 1965; Zagvyazinsky, 1986) viewed professionalism from the standpoint of the teacher's activities, while others (Abdullina, 1990; ­Shiyanov, 1991) viewed it from the standpoint of the effectiveness of teacher training in pedagogical high schools. In many studies, the issues of teacher professionalism are closely related to the issues of teacher education. Thus Balakireva (2008) in her research “Professiological basics of teacher education” called for the qualitative renewal of the content and process of teacher education, due to the essential changes in the teaching profession. She developed the model of implementation of a ‘professiological approach’ in teacher education. The aim of the ‘Teacher Professional Standard’ was to establish uniform requirements for the content and quality of vocational educational activities, to assess the level of qualification of teachers in employment and certification for career planning, to facilitate the formation of job descriptions and development of federal state educational standards of teacher education. The national framework of the standard could be supplemented with regional requirements, the internal standard of the educational institution, in accordance with the specifics of the educational programmes implemented in this institution. The professional standard works in two dimensions: on the one hand, it is the basis for analyzing and reforming teacher education (Adol’f, 2015), and on the other hand, it is the basis for regulating labour relations: the requirements for employees, the basis for attestation of pedagogical staff, the allocation of qualifications and titles. The professional standard makes demands regulating labour relations and training and retraining of pedagogical personnel (Petunin, 2015), and the development of teachers’ professional skills (Chistyakova, 2013).

Russian teacher education in the global context  197 The inspirer and the leading author of the standard is a well-known Russian educator, school principal academician Evgeny Yamburg. Analyzing the current situation, Yamburg (2014) argued the need for a new standard as the answer to real threats and challenges of the time. To date, the issue of the quality of pedagogical staff as the main resource for improving the quality of education has become acute. So as to have a set of key competencies, to answer social needs, to feel socially protected in the new economic conditions, each teacher has to clarify characteristics of their professional activities. These benchmarks are laid in the new standard of the teacher. The initial plan for the introduction of the professional standard from 1 January 2015 was postponed to 1 January 2017, at the initiative of the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Education and Science chose the gradual transition of educational organisations to the implementation of the professional standard (Teacher professional standard…, 2015). A number of researchers also supported the gradual introduction of the professional standard. In this case, the pedagogical community will be prepared for its requirements and there will be a chance for a structured discussion of its main points (Zabrodin et al., 2013, 2015; Zabrodin & Gajazova Gajazova, 2013), and for the harmonisation of the professional staff training system and the professional standard (Margolis, 2014). This points to the need for studying the preparedness and attitudes of teachers in relation to the professional standard, which became one of the subjects of sociological research, conducted by Moscow State Psychological and Pedagogical University together with the Levada Center in April 2016. The survey was conducted on a three-tiered probabilistic sample in all Federal Regions of the Russian Federation (Margolis et al., 2016). The sample included 1000 teachers of state and municipal educational institutions. ­Different subject teachers as well as elementary school teachers were involved in the survey. The readiness of the pedagogical community for the introduction of the professional standard was analyzed in the following aspects: • awareness of teachers about the standard; • the attitude of teachers towards the professional standard. This research showed that the level of awareness of teachers was not high enough. Not all teachers had studied this document, and although some respondents claimed to have studied the standard, a considerable percentage of them did not know its content. In general, respondents were positive about the implementation of professional standards, although there were concerns among some that the range of bureaucratic obstacles might increase. After all such discussions, the universal introduction of a new professional standard for teachers in the Russian Federation was postponed until 1 September 2019. The initiators of the delay were teachers’ trade unions, who feared an additional burden on teachers, as well as the teachers’ lack of readiness to meet the new standards. Since 1 January 2020, Russian school

198  Roza Valeeva and Ian Menter principals should rely on a list of competencies presented in the standard when hiring new employees. The changed version of the professional standard is characterised by a number of distinctive features, which include: • a list of professional competencies and qualification requirements for people entering the teaching profession; • the possibility of changing and processing individual paragraphs of the document, taking into account regional characteristics and specialisation of the schools; • strengthening the differentiation of standards for teachers of different skill levels; • lack of distinction between professional and personal qualities of educators; • refusal of the formal approach in favour of the personal: when evaluating the indicators of pedagogical work, the individual characteristics of the teacher should be taken into account, which guarantees the possibility of successful application of non-standard (but effective!) pedagogical methods. The developers of the new teacher’s standard are confident that the implementation of the project will create optimal conditions for the continuous professional development of primary and secondary school teachers, and the search for opportunities to improve labour performance and self-development. At the same time, it is important to note the fact of a significant expansion of the competencies expected from teachers, which may lead to a number of difficulties.

Variability and flexibility of higher teacher education In his message to the Federal Assembly in January 2020, President Vladimir Putin spoke of the need for greater flexibility in higher education to better meet the changing labour market and offered to provide students with the opportunity to choose the direction of vocational training from the third year of study, and not from the first, as it has been hitherto.1 The current scheme “4 + 2” – bachelor’s degree plus master’s degree – in this case will turn into “2 + 2 + 2”. This scheme includes a number of innovations for Russian higher education. First is the deferred choice, that is, the ability to determine the direction of training after the end of the second course, and not having to decide upon initial admission. Second is the idea of training graduates who can flexibly integrate into the labour market due to a wide educational base. If a student gets humanitarian basics of the profession during the first two years, the deep subject education within the second two years of study, then during the third two years s/he can get knowledge of something specific in teacher profession, for example, support of children with behavioural problems, or work with gifted children. The third innovation is mobility.

Russian teacher education in the global context  199 We are accustomed to the fact that the entire educational trajectory for an individual takes place in one university. However, a change in the environment, approaches, and people around creates an additional incentive for the development of competencies. There should be an opportunity to change the university after the first “two” and the need after the second – admission to the master’s programme in another university. The option of choosing a professional specialisation after the second year of study actually means reformatting the already familiar scheme “4 + 2” (bachelor’s + master’s) into “2 + 2 + 2”. This scenario is more flexible and removes one of the barriers for the most promising students. They will have the opportunity to design a training programme based on individual needs and preferences. At the first stage (the first two years), there will be more opportunities for self-determination and obtaining a broader education, and, at the second and third stages, more opportunities not only for deepening knowledge in the chosen professional profile, but also for mastering disciplines from related or even independent professional fields. The innovation proposed by the President represents a transfer into Russian educational practice of a Liberal Arts approach that has worked well in the most developed countries, which traditionally win in competition for the most talented students. The Liberal Arts model of higher education emerged in the United States in the first half of the 20th century. At that time, the creators of the educational process of the top universities had to answer two challenges at the same time: the need both for a broad outlook and for professional competencies of the graduates. The scheme “from general to specific”, from general education courses to a narrower specialisation, turned out to be the most productive and in demand among students. Currently, 365 US universities use the “2 + 2 + 2” scheme (Avdonina, 2017). Around the same time as these developments were underway in the USA, in the USSR, with a view to rapid industrialisation, a strict system of division of labour was created, where everyone performed their specific task, and specialists were trained for a specific job. There was thus a narrowing of the higher education curriculum. In the countries of Western Europe, despite the differences in economic systems, similar processes took place. The key difference here is the degree of university autonomy. Universities in the USA make their own decisions about the organisation of their educational process, while on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, government regulation tends to be much stricter. However, the global trend at present is arguably towards greater autonomy of universities. The more independent the university is, the faster it reacts to changes in the external environment, including the labour market. And the labour market is becoming more and more mobile. In the modern world, if a person can be ideally prepared for a certain workplace, it is highly likely that this particular type of activity will become automated and the demand for such specialists will be much reduced. Hence, in continental Europe, as well as in the Middle and Far East, more and more liberal education programmes are appearing. In Europe, the number of such programmes

200  Roza Valeeva and Ian Menter has grown several times over the past 30 years; now there are estimated to be about a hundred of them. Elective courses are growing and educational trajectories are becoming more flexible. In the United Kingdom, such approaches account for about 14% of tertiary education programmes. In Europe as a whole, the demand for this scheme has grown fivefold over the past 30 years. Asian countries with the highest rates of economic development also pay great attention to “2 + 2 + 2” (Tubbs, 2014; Jung, Nishimura, & Sasao, 2016). Deferred selection of specialisation appears in different formats. This is how elite educational programmes, the experimental University of Luneburg Leufana in Germany, the Spanish grado abierto (“open degree”) function. In Russia, the most famous examples of using the Liberal Arts approach are Tyumen State University and Smolny Institute at St. Petersburg State University (Ivanova & Sokolov, 2015). The option of switching to the 2 + 2 + 2 model is also being discussed in teacher training universities. For example, the Kazan Federal University is in the process of developing this model. The developers of this model from the Institute of Psychology and Education offer the following stages of professionalisation of a future teacher: • 1–2 years – the stage of self-determination, • 3–4 years – the stage of self-expression, • 5–6 years – the stage of self-realisation. In the first stage of self-determination, fundamental basic training is carried out. This is a unified basis for teacher training, which is of a general scientific and general professional nature. During this period, the development of universal and general professional competencies in the higher education programme 44.00.00 – Education and pedagogical sciences takes place. At the second stage of self-expression, the training profile is determined. The student is given the opportunity of various trajectories of obtaining teacher education, as well as the formation of an individual educational route. At the third stage of self-realisation, the student receives education in a pedagogical master’s programme. In-depth vocational training is carried out here. Students are prepared for solving non-standard problems, for new types of activity (design and research, management). This level provides the opportunity for the student to change their training profile. The ideology of building a programme is that theory is constantly linked to practice. Each theoretical module studied is accompanied by practice in the school with the corresponding tasks that are offered in this course. A weekly end-to-end workshop called “Climbing to the profession” is held, which allows organising a constant reflection of students on the connection between theory and practice. This workshop is conducted by an experienced teacher-practitioner from the school. The result of the work on the module is the “Event” as a form of presentation of educational results in the module, for example: • the defence of the project “My personal and professional perspective”; • the World-cafe with the creation of the electronic journal “Child in a multicultural environment”;

Russian teacher education in the global context  201 • presentation of the development map of a child of a certain age; • supervision of the teacher’s work with a child (pair work, situation modelling); • a portfolio of psychological and pedagogical technologies for the development of students in an educational environment. This project is being discussed among the scientific and pedagogical community of KFU and gives rise to an ambiguous assessment. Its implementation means a serious transformation of the entire educational process for teacher training.

The positioning of research and practice in teacher education Global changes that have taken place in recent years in all spheres of life have also affected the system of teacher education. The main and decisive advantage of the university graduate – as a future teacher – is their possession of such qualities as responsibility, fluency in the profession, academic and social mobility, orientation in related areas of activity, readiness for effective teaching and research work, readiness to self-education and self-improvement. Today society needs a teacher of a new type – an active, creative thinker, ready to independently search for scientific information and apply scientific knowledge in practice. In these conditions, it is necessary to strengthen the relationship between research and practice in teacher education (Valeeva & Gafurov, 2017). This approach is linked to one of the most relevant trends in the international teacher education – research and practice oriented study (Menter & Flores, 2020). Conducting research enables teachers to educate themselves as well as to find like-minded people – to find people who are interested in the same problems. The implementation of research in teacher education has been internationally identified as a key element in its development and improvement (Niemi & Nevgi, 2014; Kansanen, 2014; Munthe & Rogne, 2015; Flores, 2016). In the international teacher education programmes, the research component has taken different forms. Flores (2016) notes that in some cases it is non-existent; in other cases it is not explicit in the curriculum but it is up to the training institutions to foster the development of student teachers’ research competences, for instance during practicum; and, in other cases an explicit curriculum unit on research methods is included in the curriculum as well as an inquiry approach to the practicum. (p. 212) Linking theory and practice in teacher education is also of great importance internationally (Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006; Van Nuland, 2011; Burn & Mutton, 2015). It is one of the major issues in ITE, but at the same time, it is noted in international research that disconnection exists between

202  Roza Valeeva and Ian Menter theory and practice (Flores, 2016). Although practice is recognised as a core element in the teacher education curriculum, there is no consensus about its goals, strategies, and required competences (Flores, 2016). Duda and Clifford-Amos (2011), in their final report on ITE in six countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine), point out that the curriculum includes more specific subjects rather than integrated programmes of study (see also Kowalczuk-Walędziak et al., forthcoming). Meanwhile it is necessary to support classroom practice and research in the curriculum. The positioning of research and practice is becoming one of the most urgent issues in the transformation of teacher education in Russia. Updating the Federal State Educational Standards of Higher Education (FSES HE) has highlighted the problem of the design of professional programme design for future teachers (Margolis, 2014; Gafurov et al., 2018). The analysis of FSES HE indicates that at least 40 credits out of a total of 120 for the programme should be allocated to practice (33%). This amount of practice (33%) in relation to theoretical disciplines (67%) indicates a fairly high degree of state confidence in this delivery mode and encourages curriculum and work programme developers, as well as practice supervisors at university and school to search for new effective modes, content, technologies, support systems and practical training assessment of future teachers. Today it has become obvious that the research work of the future teacher is an important link in developing professional competence. This is also confirmed by the FSES HE, which defines research activity as one of the activities. It is also accompanied by certain competencies and professional tasks, the formation and solution of which the research work of undergraduates is aimed at. However, despite this, each group of developers of the main educational programme for the preparation of undergraduates of education at a particular university has the right to independently determine the essence and content of research work, as well as to determine the order of its organisation. According to the FSES HE, accumulation of the above competency-based potential should be carried out through such activities as design, research, and management (master's degree studies level) (Margolis, 2015). A large part in the content of competencies is also connected with the teachers’ analytical and reflective work ability, and their professional knowledge of communication tools. Thus, for example, the innovative experience of practical training of students in the master's degree in Kazan Federal University (KFU) is presented by a cooperative model of organising practice, implemented in the context of network interaction between the university, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Tatarstan, schools of the city of Kazan and the Republic of Tatarstan. From the first days of study in the pedagogical master’s, most of the undergraduates are assigned to practice in lyceums (such as the Lyceum named after N.I. Lobachevsky, IT-lyceum), which are part of the structure of the university. All types of practice, with the exception of pre-graduation, are distributed in nature (without interrupting theoretical aspects of training). This approach allows for the implementation

Russian teacher education in the global context  203 of the technology of contextual learning with immersion in the educational environment of the school. Pedagogical counselling (educational dialogue) during practical training is an important factor in the effectiveness of training, having a positive impact on the formation of the professional identity of future teachers. Close interaction with the KFU lyceums is reflected in the project activities in which the undergraduates are involved in practice. Lyceums of the University are implementing dozens of projects aimed at the comprehensive development of the student’s personality. The structure of the practice programs of undergraduate-teachers of the Institute of Psychology and Education of Kazan federal university IPE KFU involves the implementation of the following types of practice: 1. academic introductory (1st semester, dispersed); 2. academic research work (1st and 2nd semesters, concentrated); 3. academic technological (design and technological) (2nd semester, dispersed); 4. pedagogical internship (3rd semester, dispersed); 5. research work internship (3rd and 4th semesters, concentrated); 6. technological internship (design and technological) (4th semester, dispersed); 7. pre-graduation internship (4th semester, concentrated). The selected types of praxis and the continuity between them, make it possible to prioritise such complex forms of activities as undertaking projects and research at master’s degree level. Regarding the research, implementation of the main stages of pedagogical experiment is reflected in the content of dispersed practice implemented on the site of the structural units of Kazan Federal University (such as the Lyceum named after N.I. Lobachevsky, IT-Lyceum), as well as in other schools being KFU partners. Analytical and reflexive activity in relation to the pedagogical research results with the presentation of the main parts of the graduate qualification work (a m ­ aster’s thesis) is carried out within the frameworks of concentrated academic research work praxis (—one to four semesters) (Baklashova, Sakhieva, & Telegina, 2020). It is worth highlighting the focus on the growth of research and scientific-pedagogical potential of students. The distributed nature of practices allows conducting research of the educational process at the proper level, and their content is associated with the stages of the implementation of a pedagogical experiment and writing a master’s thesis, which has a positive effect on the quality of research work. The introduction of a procedure for protecting the results of practical training at the final conferences on practice, implemented in joint interaction, not only increases the degree of responsibility of the student himself, and, consequently, the quality of training, but also allows the practice supervisors to fully evaluate the student’s work, to determine further prospects for his or her research and methodical work.

204  Roza Valeeva and Ian Menter The analysis of the international and Russian literature on this issue indicates the following: 1. the problem of organising practice in the learning process in Russia and abroad is relevant in all countries of the world; 2. researchers of teacher education pay special attention to the connection between theory and practice, organisation of the system of practical training, 3. the implementation of pedagogical practices in a university is characterised by the presence of various models with differences in content and procedure; 4. models of clinical training, as well as school-university partnerships, are recognised by researchers as effective and promising models of practice; 5. priorities in practical training are the optimal organisation of interaction of all agents of the educational process, the development of practice programs in compliance with the principle of intra-level and inter-level continuity of work programmes, as well as the design of a range of assessment tools.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have seen how teacher education in Russia has been developing under the influence of global trends. Earlier chapters in the book have traced the historical and more recent developments in policy and practice across the provision of the massive and complex system that is teacher education in Russia. The tendencies identified under the umbrella term of ‘globalisation in education’, as identified around the world by Sahlberg (2010) and many others, and as identified within teacher education by Menter (2019) have connected with this historical pattern of provision in a unique and distinctive way, that can be described as a formal of vernacular globalisation. With the rapid ‘modernisation’ of the Russian economy and more widely, Russian society, we have seen how teacher education has been responding. What is especially notable are the ways in which top-down and bottom-up processes have both been important, indeed there is an effective dialectical interplay between these processes. Thus we have seen – and demonstrated in this chapter, how increasing flexibility and opportunities for student choice have been introduced into higher education and how these have percolated effectively into the provision of teacher education. We have also seen how the integration of theory and practice has become a key element in teacher education reforms with examples of very close partnerships between universities and schools playing an increasingly significant role within the provision. Underlying all of these developments has been the growing acceptance, recognition, and indeed enthusiasm for the new model of the teacher and of teaching that is appropriate to the fast changing and unpredictable world of the 21st century (Menter, 2009), a phenomenon experienced as much in Russia as elsewhere in the world. The need for teachers to have ‘adaptive

Russian teacher education in the global context  205 expertise’, that enables them to respond positively to changes in the curriculum as well as to changes in the demography of their classrooms has led to an increasingly flexible and sophisticated model of the teacher, one which the teacher education system is being adapted to adopt as a strong preparation for contemporary demands. Furthermore, these changes are not only relevant to initial teacher education, but it has been recognised that they must also inform the nature of the opportunities for serving teachers, in the form of continuing professional development. It is these kinds of developments that have heightened the awareness of the importance of teachers becoming research literate and being able to undertake enquiry-based approaches to their teaching (BERA-RSA, 2014). In the light of these developments it may be suggested that while looking across the world, the forces of globalisation may have led to some elements of convergence or even homogenisation in international approaches to teacher education, these influences in Russia have facilitated not only a modernisation of the system but have encouraged a continuing distinctiveness to the provision which draws on the best traditions of pedagogical and psychological sciences that have been recognised as one of the major contributions that Russia has made to the human sciences.

Note 1 http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/62582

References Abdullina, O. A. (1990). General pedagogical training of the teacher in system of the higher pedagogical education. Moscow: Prosveshcheniye. Adol’f, V. A. (2015). Teacher’s training for professional activities in conditions of implementation of professional standard. Vestnik Krasnoyarskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. V.P. Astaf’eva [Bulletin of Krasnoyarsk state pedagogical university], 1(31), 5–11. Avdonina, M. S. (2017). Liberal Arts educational model: Content and methods. Values and Meanings, 4(50), 98–105. Baklashova, T. A., Sakhieva, R. G., & Telegina, N. V. (2020). Architectonics of pedagogical practice programs for master’s degree students of pedagogical specialities under introduction of new Federal state educational standards. Pedagogika. Voprosy teorii i praktiki - Pedagogy. Theory & Practice, 5(1), 79–83. Balakireva, E. V. (2008). Professiological basics of teacher education. Doctoral dissertation. St. Petersburg. BERA-RSA (British Educational Research Association-Royal Society for the Arts) (2014). Research and the teaching profession. London: BERA. Burn, K., & Mutton, T. (2015). A review of ‘research-informed clinical practice’ in initial teacher education. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 217–233. Carnoy, M. (2000). Globalization and education reform. In N. P. Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and education: Interaction and contestation across cultures (pр. 43–62). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. http://books.google.ru/books/ about/Globalization_ and_Education.html?id=ayIODazytbwC&redir_esc=y

206  Roza Valeeva and Ian Menter Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Chistyakova, S. N. (2013). Teacher’s professional skills and new standards. Professional’noe obrazovanie. Stolitsa =Professional education. The Capital, 4, 14–17. Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (Eds.). (2012). Teacher education around the World. London: Routledge. DfE (Department for Education) (2010). The importance of teaching (White Paper). London: DfE. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175429/CM-7980.pdf Donaldson, G. (2010). Teaching Scotland’s future. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Duda, A., & Clifford-Amos, T. (2011). Study on teacher education for primary and secondary education in six countries of the Eastern Partnership: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Final report. European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Flores, M. A. (2012). The implementation of a new policy on teacher appraisal in Portugal: How do teachers experience it at school? Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 351–368. Flores, M. A. (2016). Teacher education curriculum. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education, 187–230. Dordrecht: Springer Press Gafurov, I. R., Valeeva, R. A., Kalimullin, A. M., & Sahieva, R. G. (2018). Testing Practice-Oriented Master's Programme in “Education and Pedagogical Sciences” (Teacher of Basic General Education). Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie Psychological Science and Education, 23(5), 25–37. doi:10.17759/pse.2018230102 Gray, J. (1998). False Dawn – The delusions of global capitalism. London: Granta. Hammerness, K., van Tartwijk, J., & Snoek, M. 2012. Teacher preparation in the Netherlands: Shared visions and common features. In L. Darling-Hammond & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Teacher education around the world. Changing policies and practices (pp. 44–65). London: Routledge. Held, D., & McGrew, A. (Eds.). (2007). Globalization theory: Approaches and controversies. Cambridge: Polity. http://www.amazon.com/ Globalization-Theory-Controversies-Anthony-McGrew/dp/0745632114 Hulme, M., & Menter, I. (2008). Learning to teach in post-devolution UK: A technical or an ethical process? South African Review of Education, 14, 43–64. Ivanova, Y. V., & Sokolov, P. V. (2015). Prospects for the development of education based on the model of liberal arts in Russia. Voprosy obrazovaniya - Education issues, 4, 72–91. Jung, I., Nishimura, M., & Sasao, T. (2016). Liberal Arts Education and Colleges in East Asia. Possibilities and challenges in the global age. Singapore: Springer. Kansanen, P. (2014). Teaching as a master’s level profession in Finland: Theoretical reflections and practical solutions. In O. McNamara, J. Murray, & M. Jones (Eds.), Workplace learning in teacher education. International practice and policy (pp. 279–292). Dordrecht: Springer. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020–1041. Kowalczuk-Walędziak, M., Valeeva, R., Sablić, M., & Menter, I. (Eds.). (forthcoming). The Palgrave handbook of Teacher Education in Central and Eastern Europe. London: Palgrave.

Russian teacher education in the global context  207 Kuzmina, N. V. (1965). Psychological structure of the teacher’s activity and the formation of his personality. Doctoral dissertation. Leningrad. Lanina, O. I. (2012). Impact of globalization on the Russian education system. Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskiye yavleniya i protsessy. - Socio-economic phenomena and processes, 12(46), 177–180. Lebedeva, M. M. (2017). International political processes of education integration. Integratsiya obrazovaniya - Integration of Education, 21(3), 385–394. doi:10.15507/1991-9468.088.021.201703.385-394 Margolis, A. A. (2014). Requirements for modernization of the basic professional educational programs of teacher training, in accordance with professional teacher standards: Proposals for implementation of activity approach in teacher training. Psihologicheskaja nauka i obrazovanie =Psychological Science and Education, 19(3), 105–126. Margolis, A. A. (2015). Models of teacher training in the framework of applied bachelor’s and master’s degree programs. Psychological science and education, 20(5), 45–64. Margolis, A. A., Arzhanykh, E. V., Gurkin, O. A., & Novikova, E. M. (2016). Teachers’ opinion about implementation of the professional standard: Results of sociological research. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 21(2), 22–34. doi:10.17759/pse.2016210204 Menter, I. (2009). Teachers for the future: What have we got and what do we need? In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 217–228). London: Routledge. Menter, I. (2018). Defining teachers’ professional knowledge: The interaction of global and national influences. Education and Self-Development, 13(1), 32–42. Menter, I. (2019). The interaction of global and national; influences. In M. T. Tatto & I. Menter (Eds.), Knowledge, policy and practice in teacher education – A cross-national study (pp. 268–279). London: Bloomsbury. Menter, I., & Flores, M. A. (2020). Connecting research and professionalism in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education. doi:10.1080/026197 68.2020.1856811 Menter, I., & Hulme, M. 2011. Teacher education reform in Scotland: national and global influences. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(4), 387–397. Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation (2013). Professional standard. The teacher (pedagogical activity in the preschool, primary general, basic general, secondary general education) (educator, teacher). Retrieved September 6, 2018, from http://www.rosmintrud.ru/docs/mintrud/orders/129/ Munthe, E., & Rogne, M. (2015). Research based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 17–24. Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2014). Research studies and active learning promoting professional competences in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 131–142. Page, T. M. (2015). Common pressures, same results? Recent reforms in professional standards and competences in teacher education for secondary teachers in England, France and Germany. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(2), 180–202. Panova, N. V. (2009). Personal-professional development of teachers at different stages of life. St. Petersburg: Anno. Peters, M., Cowie, B., & Menter, I. (Eds.). (2017). A companion to research in teacher education research. Singapore: Springer.

208  Roza Valeeva and Ian Menter Petunin, O. V. (2015). Professional standard and further training of teachers. Vestnik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. N.A. Nekrasova. =Bulletin of Kostroma state university N.A. Nekrasova, 21(3), 113–116. Pippin, J., & Jin, E. (2019). The trajectory of teacher education in South Korea: A review of policy and research. In M. T. Tatto & I. Menter (Eds.), Knowledge, policy and practice in teacher education – A cross-national study (pp. 213–232). London: Bloomsbury. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge. Sahlberg, P. (2010). Finnish lessons. Columbia: Teachers’ College Press. Slastenin, V. A. (1976). Formation of the Soviet school teachers in the process of vocational training. Moscow: Prosveshcheniye. Sorensen, T., & Dumay, X. (in press). The teaching professions and the globalization: A scoping review of the Anglophone research literature. Comparative Education Review. Spring, J. (2015). Globalization of education – An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Struyven, K., & De Meyst, M. 2010. Competence-based teacher education: Illusion or reality? An assessment of the implementation status in Flanders from teachers’ and students’ points of view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1495–1510. Shiyanov, E. N. (1991). Theoretical bases of the teacher education humanisation. Doctoral dissertation. Moscow. Teacher professional standard will be implemented оnly after a complex approbation (2015). http://minobrnauki.rf/novosti/6726 (Accessed 9 June, 2018). Townsend, T. (2011). Searching high and searching low, searching east and searching west: Looking for trust in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(4), 483–499. Tatto, M. T. (Ed.). (2007). Reforming teaching globally. Didcot: Symposium. Tatto, M. T., & Menter, I. (Eds.). (2019) Knowledge, policy and practice in teacher education – A cross-national study. London: Bloomsbury. Tubbs, N. (2014). Philosophy and modern liberal arts education. Freedom is to learn. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Valeeva, R. A., & Gafurov, I. R. (2017). Initial teacher education in Russia: Connecting theory, practice and research. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 342–360. Valeeva, R. A., & Kalimullin, A. (2019). Learning to teach in Russia: A review of policy and empirical research. In M. T. Tatto & I. Menter (Eds.), Knowledge, policy and practice in teacher education – A cross-national study (pp. 193–212). London: Bloomsbury. Van Nuland, S. (2011). Teacher education in Canada. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(4), 409–421. Whitty, G. (2014). Recent developments in teacher training and their consequences for the ‘University Project’ in Education. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 466–481. Yamburg, E. A. (2014). What will a new teacher’s professional standard bring to the teacher? Moscow: Prosveshcheniye. Zabrodin, J. M., Jamburg, E. A., & Gajazova, L. A. (2013). About development of the professional standards for teachers (teaching activities in preschool, primary, secondary education) (tutor, teacher) (explanatory note to the professional standard). Bjulleten’ Uchebno-metodicheskogo ob, edinenija vuzov RF popsihologo-pedagogicheskomu obrazovaniju =Bulletin of Educational and Methodical Association of

Russian teacher education in the global context  209 Higher Education Institutions of the Russian Federation on the Psychopedagogical Education, 2, 5–21. Zabrodin, J. M., & Gajazova Gajazova, L. A. (2013). Standard of professional activity of teachers: problems of socio-professional discussion. Psihologicheskaja nauka i obrazovanie psyedu.ru =Psychological Science and Education psyedu.ru, 3. Retrieved June 9, 2018, from http://psyjournals.ru/psyedu_ru/2013/n3/62423.shtml Zabrodin, J. M., Sergomanov, P. A., Gajazova, L. A., & Leonova, O. I. (2015). Developing a system of differentiation of levels of qualification for teachers’ professional standards. Psihologicheskaja nauka i obrazovanie =Psychological Science and Education, 20(5), 65–76. doi:10.17759/pse.2015200506 Zagvyazinsky, V. I. (1986). Development of teachers’ pedagogical creativity. Moscow: Znaniye.

9 Conclusion Ian Menter, Ilshat Gafurov, and Roza Valeeva

Introduction In this concluding chapter, we review what has emerged from our study of teacher education in Russia, over its long and complex history and in its contemporary manifestation. We suggest that there are two particularly significant features that have emerged. Firstly, we suggest that the particular case of Russia provides an extraordinary insight into the complex processes of development in approaches to teacher education. The influence of culture, politics, history, and economics can be traced throughout the period covered from the late 18th century through to the present. Similar processes have occurred in the development of teacher education in many other countries, but the distinctive pattern of historical change in Russia has provided a distinctive, indeed unique element here. Secondly, we suggest that recent developments in Russia teacher education provide an exceptionally valuable insight into the influence of globalisation on policy and practice in teacher education. Through a detailed account of developments in a federal nation which stands proudly independent, we have been able to draw out the importance of the individual and collective agency of professionals, politicians, and citizens as we have traced the ways in which Russian developments demonstrate both global divergence and convergence simultaneously. In short, this is a fascinating exemplification of vernacular globalisation, on a considerable scale. Throughout the analysis and especially in our coverage of more recent developments, we have been able to provide a rich insider perspectives through drawing on colleagues’ involvement at one particular university, Kazan Federal University, which has emerged as a major national and indeed international player in teacher education.

The past We saw in the chapters in Part I, how the roots of teacher education in Russia were established in the middle of the 18th century. As Russia developed into a quasi-European and increasingly bourgeois society, in attempts to ensure that the country could become a modern one in the 19th century, so the

Conclusion  211 number of schools increased and training for teachers became institutionalised. Teaching was in particular an occupation that was open to women and much of the early provision was established as for females only. The content of training developed along lines that were familiar in many other parts of Europe with elements reflecting subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and educational theory. There were quite close connections with educational systems in Germany and Switzerland and the influence of leading European educators could be detected. By the time of the 1917 revolution and the creation of the USSR, levels of literacy in many parts of the country were still very low indeed. In particular, educational provision was underdeveloped in some of the more peripheral parts. So it was that the incoming socialist government prioritised education policy as a centrepiece of its reforms. Not only did they ensure that basic schooling should be available to all citizens, but they determined that teachers should be well trained and that educational reform would be part of the bedrock of the transition to a more egalitarian and just society. The ideology of the ruling communist party was very actively promoted and led many to be inspired to take up teaching as a means to play their part in transforming society. The effects of these reforms were really quite extraordinary and never before had a society been so rapidly modernised through educational developments. Literacy levels rose rapidly and there was a wide range of innovations in pedagogy and educational sciences, strongly encouraged by the revolutionary leadership, not least from Vladimir Lenin himself. And in line with the new ideology the role of the churches was severely curtailed at this time as education became increasingly secular in nature and patriotic in tone. The Second World War had a devastating impact on the USSR with enormous loss of life, the destruction of many towns and villages, and a significant collapse in the economy. In the aftermath of the war, enormous efforts were put into rebuilding the economy, notably through a sequence of fiveyear plans. On the educational front, there was a determination to rebuild a mass approach to provision and so large-scale teacher training institutions were established in an effort to increase rapidly the numbers of trained teachers available in all parts of the country. More than ever before, policies were being determined centrally and implemented by decree and with strong legal enforcement practices. Teachers increasingly became agents of the state in promoting national solidarity and loyalty to the ideology of communism. The rebuilding of the economy was on a massive scale, and the overall effectiveness of the policies may be judged by considering the rapid developments in science, technology, and psychology, which led to great successes in the ‘space race’ for example, with the launching of the first satellite, the Sputnik, in 1957, and also less optimistically, the development of nuclear weapons and the birth of the ‘arms race’, also with the west. During this period, certain restrictions on civil liberties and human rights were also preserved, which placed many of those working in schools and universities in a very tortuous position. Education, including teacher education, had become a vehicle for

212  Ian Menter et al. national ascendancy and focused almost entirely on economic development, rather than individual empowerment or enlightenment. In Chapter 3, we saw how the collapse of the communist system, beginning in the mid-1980s, led to a series of major reforms in educational provision, including teacher education. Most notably, the education system as a whole ceased to be a vehicle for the promotion of communist ideology. It would be very misleading to suggest that this aspect of transformation happened overnight. There was a strong element of inertia within the system as many people, including politicians and teachers, were anxious that the pillars of society would be undermined if liberal ideas and practices were introduced too rapidly. As Kalimullin and Valeeva note in their chapter: Changes were introduced to the ideology, organizational structure, content, and economy of the teacher education system. ‘De-­ ideologization’, diversification, variability, commercialization were entirely new phe­n­om­­ena. The approach was however far from being one of imitation of western models of education. Russia remained and continues to be a proud country, seeking to maintain its distinctive identity and education continues to be seen as a key element in defending this position. The ideology that developed during the period 1985–2000 therefore was not a straightforward ‘liberal democratic’ one that supported free market capitalism. Rather, it was an ideology that continued to promote competition with other powers, especially the ‘superpowers’ of the west, but also increasingly in some tension with the growing power of the East-Asian countries. The economy, while supporting the creation of incredible wealth for a number of ‘oligarchs’, nevertheless continued to use state control to make social provision, including education and healthcare. In other words, the economy was becoming very much a mixed one and inequalities in society were (re-)emerging in ways not seen since before the revolution of 1917. While the period saw the democratisation of education and the reform of many educational institutions, including major changes in higher education, it was also a time of inconsistency and upheaval, which led to considerable disruption in provision, not least in teacher education. It is our colleagues’ judgement that political and economic instability and a lack of significant investment during these times meant that not only did teacher education fail to respond adequately to the demands of the late 20th century, but that also the teaching profession itself declined in status within Russian society. Serious innovation was thus essential at the beginning of the 21st century, as we shall see in the next section. Overall, the history of education and teacher education in Russia demonstrates how fundamentally linked the social institutions which provide schooling and teacher education are to the wider processes of social, economic, and technological change. Furthermore, the politics of education and teacher education are intimately connected to the politics of the state.

Conclusion  213

The present During the first 20 years of the 21st century, there was an increasing focus on education policy in Russia, including policy relating to teacher education. There was much institutional restructuring, including numerous university and college mergers. The Federal State Educational Standards were introduced and also revised several times, perhaps reflecting developments in other countries to some extent. In short, this was a time of considerable effort being invested in education reform and there was a growing recognition of the particular significance of teacher education in ensuring the best teaching quality in schools. In spite of this, the legacy of the Soviet era continued to influence the system. As Gafurov and Kalimullin put it in Chapter 4: …teacher education in Russia today is still a mixture of Soviet traditions and innovations introduced in the last two decades. Besides, the attempts to demolish the Soviet educational landscape have led to some completely unpredictable, often negative, consequences. They suggest that the system became ‘stuck’ in a period of transition. In spite of several concerted efforts to bring about real change, the range of initiatives caused as much instability as positive reform. The situation was not helped by continuing problems of recruitment, supply, and retention in the teaching profession. Furthermore, some new tensions have been created by the division of provision into a ‘dual system’ with particular provision being under the control of two separate ministries, Education on the one hand and Science and Higher Education on the other. One of the most significant programmes of reform was the 2014–17 ‘Modernisation of Teacher Education’. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. Here, Revyakina, drawing on her doctoral study, analyses in considerable detail the policy processes that were at work. She looks at both the internal federal interests and influences, but also at the influence of developments elsewhere and the chapter clearly demonstrates how the processes of teacher education reform in Russia during this period can be seen as an exemplary case of ‘vernacular globalisation’. In other words, we see how the historical trajectory of Russian culture and politics has interacted with the external pressures arising from the processes of globalisation in education, as so well described by western scholars such as Sahlberg (2010) and Rizvi and Lingard (2010). Revyakina suggests: In essence, the recent teacher education reform movement can be described as a paradigm shift to competence-based professional training, module-based educational programmes, aligned with the basic school legislation in force, and an increased focus on using information communication technologies.

214  Ian Menter et al. Here we see how the developments mirror those elsewhere. But she also points to: … the significance of the local particularities of policymaking and policy enactment – particularly the wider socio-political context, institutional cultures, legacy of the Soviet past, and local agentic action in the localisation of certain policy ideas. Perhaps one of the most significant aspects of these recent reforms lies in the final phrase in the above quotation, ‘local agentic action’. She demonstrates the considerable extent to which local actors, both institutions and individuals, have been able to play a part in the development and implementation of the reforms. When we consider the huge scale of the teacher education system in Russia, we may see this as a quite remarkable accomplishment. The case study of Kazan Federal University (Chapter 5) provides a very rich example of how the context of reform in the second decade of the 21st century has created major opportunities for innovation and the researchbased development of teacher education. The very creation of KFU as the result of the merger of several pre-existing institutions, together with the dynamic leadership, both at the highest level of the institution and within the various faculties and departments of the institution, aided by considerable support from the offices of the Federal and State governments, have established a site of considerable dynamic change. The processes have been greatly enhanced by KFU’s own participation in several Federal projects. The rapid development of teacher education has attracted international as well as national interest, with hundreds of overseas scholars as well as colleagues from all over the Russian Federation visiting KFU, not least through participation in their annual International Forum on Teacher Education (a mixed virtual and face-to-face event in 2020). The model of teacher education now being developed and implemented at KFU is one based on principles of: • the integration of theory and practice; • the important relationship between psychology and education in the initial learning of future teachers; • a democratic relationship between teaching staff and students; • the 2+2+2 model being available as a flexible route through to professional qualification; • strong partnerships between the University and the schools in which students are undertaking their practicum; • the significant contribution of the University’s subject faculties and departments to the preparation of teachers; • the creation of opportunities for further professional leaning for serving teachers;

Conclusion  215 • the underpinning of developments in teacher education by empirical research; • engagement with national and international networks of teacher educators and educational researchers. This model is one that is likely to have significant influence on policy and practice in Russian teacher education in the years ahead.

Conclusion: towards the future In reviewing developments in teacher education across twenty-one countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) (including Russia) that were under some form of communist government during a major part of the 20th century, a number of common patterns were identified (Menter et al., forthcoming). To conclude this chapter, we reflect on the extent to which these eight themes were identified in the case of Russia, in the analyses offered in this book. 1. There is great richness and diversity in the 21 accounts. In particular, we identify a large number of common features, but also a range of fascinating differences. However, in the case of Russia, we may note that given the geographical scale of the Federation and the considerable ethnic and cultural diversity across it, it is not surprising that we have seen that there is significant variation and diversity across this single entity. 2. The 21 cases offer a perspective on ‘vernacular globalisation’ (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Again this has been one of the most consistent themes in our analysis of Russia, brought to the fore in Chapter 6, by Elena Revyakina, but emerging increasingly throughout the book, as the development of Russian teacher education approaches the present day. 3. There is sometimes a disjunction between reforms on school education, teacher education, and higher education more generally. Additionally, some reforms focus on structures and organisation, others on curricula and learning. This also is true of Russia where we have seen how the importance of ‘congruence’ between different parts of the wider education system has been recognised by senior leaders, including notably the President (see Chapter 7), but also how sometimes there is a tension over who should be controlling different parts of the provision of teacher education, with two ministries – the one, Education, the other Science and Higher Education – each playing a significant role. 4. The influence of European integration processes is very apparent in a number of the cases considered. Teacher education across the whole Central and Eastern European region is moving towards Masters level programmes, and as we saw especially in Chapter 8, the emergence of the opportunity for extended entry programmes, the discussion of the ‘2+2+2’ approach suggests a very deep commitment in Russia to both deep and flexible professional learning for teachers, with a strong influence from the Bologna Process.

216  Ian Menter et al. 5. The impact of ‘the communist legacy’ and the struggle for independence (Chankseliani & Silova, 2018) can create further challenges. The complex political geography of CEE, especially since 1989, has had an important influence on subsequent developments and often gives rise to a turbulent policy context. There can be continuing tensions and conflicts in societies going through rapid social transformations. In the case of Russia, the complexities of development identified in Part II of this book are clear evidence of such tensions. The introduction of new forms of competition between providers as well as new mechanisms of accountability have all contributed to a much more mixed pattern of power and control than existed under the former Soviet system. 6. There are links between education development (especially teacher education), economic development, and cultural development (Hálasz, 2015). Civic society is playing an increasing role in some aspects of education (Morgan, Trofimova, & Kliucharev, 2019); however, this is not currently occurring within teacher education. In some other CEE countries, non-governmental and voluntary organisations are beginning to play a part in teacher education. In Russia, one of the inherited distinctive elements in provision is the commitment to strong connections between the economy and social inclusion, that is universal access to public provision. We saw how the range of specialised schooling and vocational elements in education have been reflected in the ways that teacher education as developed over recent years – but the grounding for this diversity was well established historically. 7. The importance of cultural and ethnic diversity within many of the countries is apparent and perhaps especially significant are questions around languages. One example of this was provided in the case study of Kazan Federal University (Chapter 5) where one of the most dynamic aspects of reform has been the commitment to retaining and developing the distinctive culture and language/s of Tatarstan. But similar patterns of cultural and linguistic distinctiveness are very evident across many of the entities that constitute the Russian Federation. While there can be little argument that overall the centre of power and control lies very much in Moscow, as the Federal capital, there is increasing celebration of diversity across the Federation and some evidence of a devolution of responsibility to regional and local governments. 8. There is great significance in the standing and status of teachers and of teaching as a profession in all of these 21 settings in CEE, and the relationship of these with the supply of teachers. This has been proved to be extremely pertinent to the Russian case. Throughout history and up to the present day, we have seen how significant the social standing of the teaching profession, the salary and working conditions of teachers, and the balance between the demand for teachers and their recruitment and supply to the school systems has been. The challenges of recruitment and supply were especially evident at particular times (see Chapter 6 for example).

Conclusion  217 As we consider the future of teacher education in Russia, we may assume that policy and practice will continue to change as society and the economy develop. There is considerable evidence now that the importance of teaching is widely recognised and that teacher education has risen up the political agenda. In many ways what has distinguished the ways in which teacher education has responded to social and economic change, has been the extent of collaboration between different players in the system. Certainly compared with some examples from the ‘western world’ there appears to be both greater collaboration between politicians, policymakers, and professional practitioners (Menter, Valeeva, & Kalimullin, 2017). Furthermore, there appears to be a recognition that rigorous research must provide a key underpinning for reforms. These developments have been most evident in Chapters 7 and 8. The year in which most of this book was written, 2020, was the year of the coronavirus pandemic. Russia was as badly affected by this as many other countries. However, the teacher education system showed considerable resilience as it rapidly adapted to the necessary restrictions that were introduced, adopting and developing new technologies to facilitate on-line learning, for example. Although Russia was not alone in demonstrating such resilience and rapid adaptability, the efficient and effective manner of the response to the pandemic was impressive. The kinds of integrated approaches to teacher education that have been developed at Kazan Federal University, as well as at leading centres elsewhere in the country, have provided exemplars of what may be achieved when research, policy, and practice interact productively and also, when there is an openness, indeed a hunger to exchange ideas and to learn from the international community of teacher education scholarship. Comparative education research will continue to play a crucial role in informing national and regional developments, but it is also becoming very apparent that there is much to be learned by scholars and practitioners across the globe by reviewing, analysing, and learning from what is currently developing in Russian teacher education. As we look to the future, we may note how the initial Modernisation of Teacher Education project was effectively replaced by new calls from the President, Vladimir Putin, to bring Russia into the top ten countries in terms of education quality by 2024. The development of teacher education is planned within the framework of the project ‘Teacher of the Future’ of the national project ‘Education’ (2019–2024) (as described in Chapter 7). There is much to celebrate both in the history and in the contemporary practices of teacher education in Russia. The inspirations of Tolstoy and Vygotsky from the 19th and 20th centuries are clearly found in many corners of the contemporary teacher education scene around the world. However, emerging practices in 21st century Russia are starting to attract renewed interest from scholars and practitioners in many of these same corners. It is our hope that this book will play a part in raising awareness of what is now

218  Ian Menter et al. being achieved, as well as offering an exemplification of how a huge system can provide opportunities for authentic professional and scholarly agency.

References Chankseliani, M., & Silova, I. (Eds.). (2018). Comparing post-socialist transformations – Purposes, policies and practices in education. Didcot: Symposium. Hálasz, G. (2015). Education and Social Transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Education, 50(3), 350–371. Menter, I., Kowalczuk-Walędziak, M., Valeeva, R., & Sablić, M. (forthcoming). Teacher education in Central and Eastern Europe: Emerging themes and potential future directions. In M. Kowalczuk-Walędziak, R. Valeeva, M. Sablić, & I. Menter (Eds.). The Palgrave handbook of teacher education in central and Eastern Europe. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. Menter, I., Valeeva, R., & Kalimullin, A. (2017). A tale of two countries – forty years on: politics and teacher education in Russia and England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 616–629. Morgan, J., Trofimova, I., & Kliucharev, G. (2019). Civil society, social change, and a new popular education in Russia. London: Routledge. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge. Sahlberg, P. (2010). Finnish lessons. New York: Teachers’ College Press.


academic community 157, 160, 161 academic disciplines 21 academic programme 28 accreditation 92 active liberalization process 181 activity-­based approach 104 activity theory 3 Alexander I 17, 19 Alexander II 22, 24 Alexander, Robin 2 Alferov, Alexander D. 31 All-­Russian Congress of Students of Teachers’ Training Institutes 45 All-­Union Committee on Higher School Affairs (VKVSh) 64 Applied bachelor 160 Approximate Basic Educational Programme (ABEP) 107–108 bachelor programmes 86, 161 Bekhterev, Vladimir M. 31 Bologna Agreement 183 Bologna Declaration 101, 105 Bologna principles 153 Bologna process 101, 144 Bolshevik Revolution 4 Brezhnev, Leonid 68 Bronfenbrenner, Urie 1, 2 Chankseliani, M. 6 Charter of Public Schools 17 class-­and-­lesson system 16 classical languages 23 classical universities 120 cognitive motivation 111 cognitive transformation 186 College students 15 Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) 13 communism, ideology of 211 communist legacy 216

Communist Party 58, 78 Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) 77 Communist regime 43 competence-­based educational programmes 164 competence-­based framework 156 content-­enhanced teacher education 167 country’s economic growth 14 COVID-­19 3, 121, 142, 147 cultural and ethnic diversity 216 cultural development 131 ‘Cultural Revolution’ movement 61 curriculum 18, 26, 49, 138 Davydov, Vasily 146 de-­ideologisation, of education 77–79 democratic societies 6 didactics 21, 28 digital teacher training programmes 142 discipline-­oriented courses 22 discourse historical approach 154 discursive events 154 district schools 131 documentary data 154 documentary materials 154 economic and cultural development 13 economic crisis 77 economic development 14 economisation 5 economy and social inclusion 216 education: activities 185; community 24; de-­ideologisation of 77–79; development 11–13, 131; full-­time intramural form of training 56; fundamental and practical education 155; infrastructure 139; and methodological services 103; new educational policy 43; and pedagogical sciences 200;

220  Index policies 121, 155, 163; post-­ revolutionary period 43; public education 42; school education 54; scientific and teaching communities 55; socio-­economic factors of modernisation 62–63; socio-­economic situation 56; state-­funded training 56; system 34; western models 212 educational institutions 13, 14, 18, 20, 31, 33, 52–53, 55, 84, 92, 111, 114, 212; accreditation of 92 educational interaction 111 educational mechanism 163 educational opportunities 186 educational organisations 51 educational policy 17, 185 educational problems 134 educational process 20, 49, 110 educational programme 109 educational programmes 103, 112 educational provision 212 educational research 143 educational services 113 educational trajectories 161 Elabuga Institute 135 Elabuga State Pedagogical University 131 e-­learning 168 elective courses 200 Emancipation Reform 22 Engels, Friedrich 78 eparchial schools 27 European integration process 215 evening courses 57 Federal Coordination Council 165 Federal Regions of the Russian Federation 197 Federal State Educational Standards 213 Federal State Educational Standards (FSES) 99, 107–111 Federal State Programmes 164 federal universities 102 female education institutions 24 female grammar schools 26, 27 female teacher seminaries 26 Fifth Five-­year Plan 63 financial resources 129, 132 flagship universities 102, 118 foreign language 91 free higher education 105 free social institution 82 full-­time students 115 fundamental and practical education 155 funding 142

Gafurov, Ilshat 4, 213 general secondary education 110 global education reform movement 152 globalisation: Bologna process 194; research and practice, in teacher education 201–204; teacher professionalism and 195–198; technological and social changes 194 Gorbachev, Mikhail 5, 76 graduates 190 grammar schools 24, 131 Grant, Nigel 1 Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia (HSPUR) 88 higher and university levels 12 higher education 50, 78, 102, 106; education universities 23; institutions 113, 156; multi-­level system of 84–88; organisations 67, 120; teacher training 23; teacher training education 83 higher pedagogical courses 33 higher pedagogical educational institutions 52 higher primary colleges 33 higher professional pedagogical education 106 higher professional teacher education 105 Higher Teacher Education 167 higher teacher education 198–201 Ignatiev, Pavel N. 34 illiteracy 18 in-­demand teacher training programmes 142 independent assessment 161 independent pedagogical institutes 33 industrialisation 25–26 initial teacher education (ITE) 193 innovative approaches 132 innovative bases 165 innovative economic imperative 157 innovative teaching techniques 133 in-­service teachers 57 Institutes of Education Development (IED) 141 institutes of public education 47–49 institutional change 152 institutional cultures 153 institutional reform: Federal State Educational Standards 107–111; levels of teacher education 105–107; organisational structure of teacher

Index  221 education 111–117; role of new universities 117–121; state teacher education policy 99–105 instructional skills 158 integrated group of specialisms (IGS) 107 international collaboration 166 international education community 145 International Forum on Teacher Education (IFTE) 3, 214 internationalisation 153 international practices 130 interviews 154 IT boarding grammar school 140 Jankovic, Fedor 16 job descriptions 196 Kalashnikov, S. P. 162 Kalimullin, Aydar 4, 212, 213 Kasprzhak, A. G. 162 Kazan Federal University (KFU) 202, 203; flexible system of teacher education 134–139; international collaboration and participation 143–146; new infrastructure for teacher education 139–142; pedagogical and psychological training 136; pedagogical universities 130; of research-­based teacher education 143; researchers’ international cooperation 134; and teacher education 128–130; teacher training traditions 130–132 Khrushchev, Nikita 68 Kliucharev, G. 5 Korsakov, Dmitry 23 Krupskaya, Nadezhda 50 labour market 68, 138, 155, 199 labour union organisations 69 learning communities 185 learning outcomes 156 learning process 20, 21 lecturers 28 Lenin, Vladimir 42, 58, 60, 61, 67, 78, 211 Lerner, Isaak 146 Liberal Arts approach 199 Lingard, B. 213 literacy levels 211 Lobachevsky grammar school 140 Lobachevsky, Nikolai 20 local government seminaries 26 Lomonosov, Mikhail 15

low-­skilled specialists 133 Lunacharsky, Anatoly 43 Mahatma Gandhi 3 Makarenko, Anton S 48 Makhmutov, Mirza 146 market flexible 156 market relations 181 market relevant 156 Marxism-­Leninism 55, 58 Marx, Karl 78 mass education 13 master’s degree programmes 86, 106, 137, 159, 199 Menter, I. 204 Microsoft Teams platform 142, 147 Ministry of Higher Education and Science 188 modernisation, of teacher education: ‘new teacher education’ policy production 154–157; theoretical and analytical framework 154 Modernisation of Teacher Education Project (MoTEP) 153; as professional training 159–160 mono-­level (traditional) approach 86 Morgan, J. W. 5 Moscow City Pedagogical University (MGPU) 184 Moscow Pedagogical Institute 33 Moscow Pedagogical State University (MPSU) 88 Moscow State Psychological and Pedagogical University 197 Moscow University 15 MoTEP initiative 158 multidisciplinary research 134 multidisciplinary university 138 multi-­level (innovative) system 86 multilevel teacher education 91 multi-­staged model 86 National Innovation System 163 National Qualifications Framework 156 national system for teacher growth (NSTG) 190 neo-­conservative paradigm 166 network cooperation 163 new educational phenomena 134 new educational policy 43 non-­classical secondary schools 24 non-­educational training programmes 113 non-­pedagogical educational programmes 138

222  Index non-­pedagogical universities 19, 102, 114, 115, 120 non-­state higher educational institution 31 official statistics 104 online courses 142 Organization for Economic Co-­ operation and Development (OECD) 177 Parochial schools 24 parochial secondary schools 26 part-­time training 57 Party committees 79 pedagogical classes 52 pedagogical colleges, programmes of study in 50–51 pedagogical courses 52 pedagogical education 190 pedagogical educational institutions 130 pedagogical institutes 21, 29, 46–47, 52, 64 pedagogical knowledge 158, 211 pedagogical school 54 pedagogical technical schools 52 pedagogical training 57 pedagogical universities 20, 102, 112, 114, 117, 118, 130, 138; agro-­ pedagogical 53; duration of courses 53; industrial-­pedagogical 53; psychological and pedagogical 53 pedagogic theory 21 pedagogy 28, 30 peer learning 168 People’s Commissariat for Education 49 Pokrovsky, Mikhail N. 43 policy learning 168 policy-­making 152 political and cultural freedoms 4 polytechnic education 45 post-­communism 5 post-­revolutionary period 43 practical training 21 practice-­enhanced teacher education 167 practice-­oriented mechanism 163 practice oriented modules 164 pre-­school institutions 110 pre-­service teachers 122 primary education 12, 14, 18 primary school 45 primary school teachers 33 private educational institutions 82 professional education 19, 186 professionalisation 159

professionalism 167 professional communities 157, 161 professional training 177 Prussian model 16 public education system 14 public higher educational institutions 82 Putin, Vladimir 155, 183, 185, 217 Rachevsky, Yefim 184 reforms: in secondary education 78; of teacher education 44–46 refugee children 110 regional labour market 113 regional pedagogical universities 113 religious institutions 32–35 research 129 Revyakina, Elena 4 Rizvi, F. 213 Rubinstein, Sergei 146 Russian Academy of Education 143 Russian digital platform 189 Russian education policy 119 Russian language 91 Russian Language Council 183 Russian literature 91 Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) 65 Russian teacher training universities 57 Sahlberg, P. 204, 213 Saint Petersburg Main Pedagogical Institute 21 Saint Petersburg Pedagogical Institute 21 Saint Petersburg University 21 school-­based practices 163 school children 24 school education 15, 19, 54, 215 school students 51 science of teaching 15 scientific-­methodological framework 189 Scopus and Web of Science 144 Scottish model 195 secondary education 12 secondary educational institutions 30 secondary pedagogical educational institutions 52, 53 secondary school 45 secondary school teachers 34, 65 secondary teacher training education 83 secondary vocational education 84 Secondary vocational teacher education 105 Shanyavsky, Alfons L. 31, 32 Shatsky, Stanislav 50 Shelaputin, Pavel G. 31

Index  223 Silova, I. 6 Simonov, Ivan 20 Smith, M. 5 social categories 12 social composition 59 social institutions 212 socialism, crisis of 76–77 social organisation 12 social reforms 121 social responsibility 2 social restrictions 59 social support 121 socio-­economic development 14 socio-­political context 153 Soviet regime 56 Soviet school 68 Soviet teacher training system 133 specialised linguistic departments 52 State Educational Standards 137 state-­funded programmes 137 state teacher education policy: Bologna Process 101; federal and flagship universities 102; higher education 102; national educational initiative 101; non-­pedagogical universities 102; pedagogical universities 102 statistical data 113 St. Petersburg female grammar schools 26 St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute 17 St. Petersburg Public School 17 St. Petersburg teacher school 25 Strategic Academic Unit (SAU) 144 student groups 59 students’ educational preferences 138 students’ learning process 20 student teaching placements 50 subject-­based approaches 15 subject knowledge 211 subject training 111 teacher education 19, 21, 25, 34, 68, 87; as activity-­based pedagogy 162–163; challenges and problems of 179–181; competency-­based model of 103; content of 68, 88–93; curriculum 49–50; development 44; early 20th-­century developments 30–32; first half of 19th century 17–22; levels of 105–107; organisational structure of 111–117; origins of 13–17; programmes 43, 114; reform of 44–46, 99; reforms 93; role of new universities 117–121; second half of 19th century 22–25;

system 104, 121; system of 69; and teacher quality 177; variability and/or consolidation 162; vocational teacher education 47; for women 26–29 teacher education programmes 20 teacher education reform 152 teacher intelligentsia 15 teacher professionalism 196 teachers: and educators 83; pay and working conditions 69; professional certification 189; professional development 189; professionalism 121; of retirement age 189; social status of 69 teacher shortages 57 teachers’ institutes 64 teachers’ seminaries 33 teacher’s training college 15 teachers’ training colleges 17 teacher training: activity-­based approach 103; in classical universities 70; content knowledge of 67; crosscutting curricula and coordinated programmes 91; democratisation and changes in 79–81; externship 51; flexible system of 134–139; government and party initiatives 63–65; initiatives of Boris Yeltsin government 81–84; innovation and reform 193; institutions 112; international forum 146–147; long-­term planning 189; long-­term planning of 188; new forms and programmes 53; new infrastructure 139–142; non-­ pedagogical universities 115; programmes 113, 115, 121, 122; reorganisation of 132–134; requirements for basic level 189; research and practice 201–204; research-­based teacher education 142; revised teacher training programmes 103; socialism 68–70; staff 83; in universities 49–50, 144; vocational/higher teacher training education document 71; world-­class centers for 188 teacher training courses 21 teacher training courses and programmes 57 teacher training institutes 29–30, 33, 70, 188 teacher training system 13 Teaching and Learning International Survey 177–179

224  Index teaching methods 21 teaching quality 160 teaching skills 29 technical tasks 164 Tikhomirov, Dmitry I. 31 Tolstoy, Dmitry 26, 28 Tolstoy, Leo 3, 217; educational thinking and practice 3 traditional research schools 143 transforming education 181 Trofimova, I. 5 Tver teacher school 25 two-­month pedagogical training programmes 57 universal compulsory primary education  53 universalisation 113 University of Helsinki 145 University of Rochester 145 upper secondary school 45 USSR education system 63 Valeeva, Roza 4, 212 vernacular globalisation 195, 215

vocational higher education institutions 24 vocational professions 82 vocational secondary education 82 vocational teacher education 47 vocational teacher training 23, 29 Vygotsky, Lev 3, 217 western teacher education 3 women’s educational institutions 29 women, teacher education for: curriculum 26; female grammar schools 26; female teacher seminaries 26; higher courses 28; local government seminaries 26 workschools 45 Yakobiy, Arkady 23 Yamburg, E. A. 197 Yeltsin, Boris 81–84 Young Communist League 69 young teachers 190 Yushkov, Konstantin 23 zone of proximal development 3