On the role of personality in history. Often this phrase is referred to as "cliches" and it is believed that the role of the individual is something far-fetched, for "it is not a matter of personality, but of the collective spirit and consciousness." However, in Russian history there was also a place for the collective spirit and specific personalities, thanks to whom the country received a significant impetus for its development.
Due to the fact that the 2016-2017 academic year began with new hopes for the effective work of the new Minister of Education, it is worth paying attention to the anniversary of the birth of a person in which such concepts as "enlightenment" and "public education" have found their important place in system of values of Russia. We are talking about Sergei Semyonovich Uvarov, who was the Minister of Public Education - the "record holder". At the helm of the ministry, Sergei Uvarov was longer than any of the ministers of education of the Russian Empire - 15 years (from 1834 to 1849). Today, September 5, marks the 230th anniversary of the birth of Sergei Semyonovich Uvarov, a man who made a great contribution to the educational system of the Russian State.
Liberal sources unanimously call Sergei Uvarov an official who, having stood at the head of the Ministry of Public Education, "tried to limit educational activities to the training of servants of the sovereign." In other words, the liberal public blames the minister for the following: the education allegedly was deprived of something that was not associated with "serving the autocracy", namely, "free thinking" and "individuality." One of the arrows of criticism is associated with the fact that Uvarov worked in a system that allowed only representatives of the nobility of Russia to receive higher education.
At the same time, the same liberals clearly deliberately sweep aside two most important facts related to the activities of Sergei Uvarov at the ministerial post.
Fact one: it was under Sergei Uvarov that the term "public education" began to be embodied in reality, and an effective educational system began to form in the country, aimed at training representatives of various classes. Fact two: Sergei Uvarov took office less than 9 years after the Decembrist uprising, and therefore it would be very strange if, after such a short time since the attempted coup d'état, any of the officials in the country were allowed to make an educational emphasis on freethinking … By definition, the emperor could not allow such a "suicidality" for the monarchy.
Moreover, the liberal critical arrows directed at Sergei Uvarov do not take into account the fact that it was under him that the Ministry of Public Education began to implement a policy of sending the best Russian students and teachers for internships at leading European universities. That is why the statements that Uvarov "forced the education of Russia to stew in its own juice" do not stand up to criticism. It was under the Minister of Public Education Uvarov that the universities and gymnasiums of the Russian Empire received virtually all-European status, while not departing from the concept of “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality ". Moscow State University, during the management of the educational system by Sergei Uvarov, grows into one of the best universities in Europe.
And the statements that under Uvarov only noblemen could receive a university education looks completely strange. As if before the appointment of Sergei Semyonovich to the educational ministry, everything was radically different.
The result of Sergei Uvarov's activities as Minister of Public Education was the active opening of schools with a class component: parish schools for children of peasants and townspeople, county schools for merchant children and children of wealthy artisans, and for children of noblemen - gymnasiums of all levels. Someone will say that “this is undemocratic,” because educational continuity has ceased to exist. But once again - we must not forget what period of Russian history we are talking about. This time. And two - education, with all its pitfalls in the second quarter of the 19th century, was becoming really massive. The influx into parish schools was such that classes with 40-50 pupils became the norm. The quality of such training is a separate issue, but, as they say, where is “all at once”?
From the composition of the educational program parish school: the law of God, reading, writing, arithmetic.
From the composition of the educational program county school: the law of God, arithmetic, geometry, grammar, general and Russian geography, primary physics, natural science.
Of the composition gymnasium educational program: mathematical cycle (algebra, geometry, physics), fine arts (poetry, literature), natural history (botany, zoology), foreign languages (Latin, German, French), philosophy, history, geography, gymnastics, music, dance …
During the years of Sergei Uvarov's management of the Ministry of Public Education, the number of students at Russian universities has grown by almost 25% (from 2,750 to 3,435). By today's standards, such a number of students in the universities of a huge country is a drop in the ocean. But this, after all, is not our 21st century, when both the number of universities and the number of students is such that it is legitimate to think about the expediency of this “fertility”, which sometimes has nothing in common with real progress in education.
The educational system that developed under Sergei Uvarov was, as they would say now, of a clear patriotic character, given that in those days the terms "patriotism" and autocracy "were often synonymous.
More than a century and a half after the expiration of the period of history, when Sergei Uvarov was at the head of the Ministry of Education, we can say that there were also many excesses. The only question is: when and where were there no such excesses at all? The main thing is that today our education officials are able and able to take into account the main mistakes of both the distant past and yesterday, as well as be able and able to attract into the educational system all the best that has been done in it over the years of its existence. This, perhaps, is the essence of that major reform, without which our modern education will not be able to develop as we would like, based on truly national and, of course, state interests.
