Development of science during the reign of Nicholas 1. Development of secondary and higher education in Russia at the end of the 18th – first half of the 19th century. Text of the scientific work on "Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I"

Keywords

MINISTRY OF PEOPLE'S EDUCATION / EDUCATION GOVERNANCE / EDUCATIONAL REFORMS / ALL-WEDDING EDUCATION / CONTINUITY OF EDUCATION/ PRIVATE SCHOOLS / PENSION PROVISION FOR TEACHERS / MINISTRY OF NATIONAL EDUCATION/ EDUCATION MANAGEMENT / EDUCATION SYSTEM REFORMS / ALL-CLASS EDUCATION / CONTINUUM IN EDUCATION / PRIVATE SCHOOLS / TEACHER RETIREMENT INSURANCE

annotation scientific article on history and archeology, the author of the scientific work - Elena Aleksandrovna Kalinina

The main components of the education reform during the reign of Nicholas I are considered: the abolition of the continuity of the school system, the receipt of a complete education at each stage of the school, significant changes in the curriculum of the general education school, strengthening of control and supervision. An achievement in the development of the national educational system during this period is a significant increase in the number of secondary and primary schools. Parish schools opened by various departments have expanded the network of schools in the countryside. The lower educational institutions of the Holy Synod, the Ministry of State Property, the Mining Department and other institutions allowed many children to receive primary education in the villages of state peasants.

The text of the scientific work on the topic "Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I"

Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I

E. A. Kalinina

Elena A. Kalinina

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Researcher at Petrozavodsk State University. Address: 185910, Russia, Republic of Karelia, Petrozavodsk, Lenin Ave., 33. E-mail: [email protected]

Annotation. The main components of the education reform during the reign of Nicholas I are considered: the abolition of the continuity of the school system, the receipt of a complete education at each stage of the school, significant changes in the curriculum of the general education school, strengthening of control and supervision. Achievement in the development of the national educational system

during this period is a significant increase in the number of secondary and primary schools. Parish schools opened by various departments have expanded the network of schools in the countryside. The lower educational institutions of the Holy Synod, the Ministry of State Property, the Mining Department and other institutions allowed many children to receive primary education in the villages of state peasants.

Key words: Ministry of Public Education, education management, reforms of the education system, all-class education, continuity of education, private schools, pension provision for teachers.

The article was received in April 2014.

In recent years, interest in the history of Russian educational policy has grown significantly. Researchers are looking for new approaches to assessing the past, striving to comprehensively analyze government policy in the development of public education, the activities of private schools and educational institutions of various departmental subordination [Kostikova, 2001; Polyakova, 1998; Filonenko, 2004; Khoteenkov, Cherneta, 1996]. Nevertheless, individual historical epochs, which are of great importance from the point of view of creating a national educational system, remain insufficiently studied. Thus, it seems necessary to consider the basic principles of managing the education system during the reign of Nicholas I, as well as the formation during this period of a network of secondary and primary educational institutions.

Back in the reign of Alexander I, on May 15, 1824, A.S. Shishkov was appointed minister of public education.

http://vo.hse.ru

FROM THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION

as many adamant as original convictions and views on the events of their time and enlightenment ”[Demkov, 1909, p. 57]. His appointment is rightly associated with a change in the ideological attitudes of official policy, which affected the sphere of education, the press and oversight of society, and with the strengthening of the influence of Orthodoxy and the Church. The close union of state and spiritual power was seen as a feature of the development of Russia. In the spirit of the social doctrine of official Orthodoxy, “the ideologists of the theory of national identity considered the union of the Orthodox Church and the supreme power as a guarantee of the country's political stability” [Vishlenkova, 2002, p. 123].

In June 1824, the new minister, in a note addressed to Alexander I, outlined the principles that, in his opinion, should be guided in the work of public education: “True enlightenment consists in the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom: in establishing oneself in the Orthodox faith<...>All these aspirations to enrich oneself with all the necessary information should be based on meekness and humble reason, alien to the violent speculations excited by the passions ”[Shishkov, 1863, p. 14].

On September 11, 1824, at a meeting of the Main Board of Schools, A.S. Shishkov made a solemn speech, where he explained the principles of teaching and upbringing of the younger generation, which from now on were supposed to be followed. The minister noted that "education should be national, that is, it should be consistent with the needs of the state, in this still political system." In particular, he said: “If the youth brought up in many schools<...>what is not confirmed in reverence for God, in devotion to the Emperor and the Fatherland, will become infected with false-wise speculations, then how much time will subsequently happen from that evil! " [Collection of decrees and instructions for the Ministry of Public Education. T. I. Stb. 527-528]. Thus, it was not so much education itself that was recognized as important, but the education of loyalty to the existing system. The task of educational institutions at all levels was proclaimed the formation of morality, which meant loyalty and commitment to the monarchy and the official church. The usefulness of the "sciences that refine the mind,<...>without faith and without morality ”was questioned.

AS Shishkov considered it necessary to strictly observe the class principle in school construction: “The sciences are useful only when they are used and taught in moderation, depending on the state of the people and according to the need, what each title has in them.<...>To instruct an agricultural son in rhetoric would mean preparing him to be a thin and useless and still harmful master ”[Voronov, 1855, p. 271]. Therefore, I clarified the

E. A. Kalinina

nistr, “parish schools should exist in our country mainly for the peasants, uyezd schools - for the merchants, chief officer nobles, gymnasiums - mainly for the nobles” [Milyukov, 1994, p. 294]. Education and upbringing of students had to be entirely in the hands of the state.

In connection with the general change in government policy, the class increased in the organization of the school system. The idea of the continuity of the levels of the education system has been replaced by the principles of "complete course of study" applicable to each level of the school. The government's rejection of the liberal principles of the school Charter of 1804 became obvious already in the early 1820s, but it received legal registration under Nicholas I, in the new Charter of 1828, and later was elevated to the rank of the main state doctrine in the Uvarov formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy , nationality ".

During the reign of Nicholas I, significant changes took place in the organization of secondary and primary education. The reform of the education system from the very beginning reflected the conservative views of the monarch. In the very first year of his reign, Nikolai Pavlovich, recognizing the organization of the education of youth as the most important state matter, published the Highest Rescript to the Minister of Public Education A.S. Shishkov on the establishment of the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions and its tasks. Before the Committee was set the goal of "comparisons and equations of the charters of educational institutions and the definition of courses in them" [Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T. I. S. 460]. The Committee included A.S.Shishkov, M.M.Speransky, K.A.Liven, E.K.Sivers, K.O. Lambert, S.S.Uvarov, A.A. and V. A. Perovskiy, S. G. Stroganov. The committee was ordered: to compare all the statutes of educational institutions of the empire, to consider the taught courses of teachings and to prohibit any arbitrary teaching of teachings from arbitrary books and notebooks. All the new statutes for various degrees of educational institutions were personally approved by the emperor, "as well as the educational methods chosen for them." One of the first proposals, voiced at the meetings of the newly created Committee, was the introduction of teaching in educational institutions of ancient languages - Greek and Latin.

In 1827, the Imperial Rescript was issued to A.S. Shishkov about the prohibition of admitting serfs to grammar schools and universities. In it, the emperor emphasized that the education of serfs, courtyards and villagers in gymnasiums does not meet the interests of the state: “From this there is a twofold harm: on the one hand, these young people, having received an initial education from landowners or from negligent parents, for the most part enter the school already with bad habits and infect their classmates with them, or through this hinder the caregivers

http://vo.hse.ru

FROM THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION

for fathers of families to give their children to these institutions; on the other hand, the most excellent of them, by diligence and success, are accustomed to the kind of life, to the way of thinking and concepts that do not correspond to their state "[Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T II. P. 676].

In accordance with the monarch's will, the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions spoke out against the school policy enshrined in the Charter of 1804, namely against a unified system of schools, in which individual links served as preparatory steps to the next. It was decided to change the conditions for admitting children to educational institutions of the country: from now on, people of free states were accepted in the gymnasium, and landlord serfs, villagers and courtyards were allowed to study in parish and district schools in agriculture, gardening and other sciences necessary for improvement or dissemination agricultural, handicraft and any other industry. With such measures, the government protected the gymnasiums from people from the lower strata of society: for them secondary education was recognized as useless and constituting an unnecessary luxury, since it "took them out of the circle of the primitive state without benefit for them and for the state" [Lalaev, 1896, p. 104].

The charter of gymnasiums and schools of county and parish schools, which was imperially approved on December 8, 1828, preserved three stages of a general education school: parish, county schools and gymnasiums, and it separated the county schools from the gymnasiums. Uyezd and parish schools were lower educational institutions with a complete cycle of education; it was believed that they provided "a complete course of information necessary for final education for people of different ranks" [Voronov, 1855, p. 3]. According to the Charter of 1828, the establishment of provincial gymnasiums was intended "to provide ways of a decent education for those young people who do not intend or cannot continue their studies at universities, but provide those who are preparing to enter them with the necessary preliminary knowledge" (Art. 134 ). Article 46 of the Charter established the purpose of the county schools: "For the children of merchants, artisans and other urban inhabitants, together with the means of better moral education, to deliver that information which, according to their way of life, needs and exercises, can be most useful to them." The purpose of the establishment of parochial schools was defined as "the dissemination of the initial, more and less necessary information among people of the lowest states" [Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T. 3. S. 1099]. Thus, the government made a step from a non-class school with one program, proclaimed in the first quarter of the 19th century, to a class-based school with different curricula. As P. N. Milyukov asserted, “the Alexander staircase of educational institutions was torn apart, but from each part

Educational issues. 2014. No. 4

E. A. Kalinina

Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I I_B

they made a completely special, independent whole ”[Milyukov, 1994, p. 293].

The provisions of the Charter increased the period of study in the gymnasium from 4 to 7 years and determined eight subjects for study: the Law of God; Russian grammar; languages - Latin, German and French; maths; geography and statistics; history; physics; calligraphy, sketching and drawing. The curriculum of the county schools became 3-year and was reduced to seven subjects: the Law of God; Russian language; arithmetic; geometry; geography; history of the Russian state and general; calligraphy, sketching and drawing. In these schools, according to local needs, with the permission of the Minister of Public Education, additional courses could be opened "for teaching those arts and sciences, which knowledge most contributes to success in trade and in industry" (Article 58). In parish schools, the curriculum was still limited to one class and included the study of the Law of God, reading from the books of the church and civil press, calligraphy and mastering the four actions of arithmetic. The duration of the training has not been established. In practice, it depended on the abilities of individual students. In one of the paragraphs of the Charter, it was clarified that "students wishing to repeat the training course are admitted again to the school" [Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T. 3. S. 1101]. Girls could study in parish schools on an equal basis with boys.

In an effort to create an orderly system of educational institutions, to put it "on firm and uniform rules", to bring its internal structure to a stricter order, Nicholas I liquidated privileged secondary educational institutions for children of nobles: lyceums and noble boarding schools at gymnasiums.

Lyceums "as schools of higher sciences" were founded under Alexander I. They occupied the "middle place" between universities and gymnasiums. In the first half of the XIX century. five such educational institutions operated in Russia: the Demidov Lyceum in Yaroslavl was opened in 1805 at the expense of the industrialist P. G. Demidov, the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum in Tsarskoe Selo - in 1811, the Richelieu Lyceum in Odessa - in 1817, Volynsky ( Kremenetsky) in Kremenets - in 1817. Prince I.A. The gymnasium was opened in 1820 by the grandson of I. A. Bezborodko, Count A. G. Kushelev-Bez-Borodko, after the death of his grandfather.

Lyceums did not have a unified legislation regulating their activities. They were obliged to act within the framework of the highest approved Statutes and combined the gymnasium course with the study of optional courses in Roman law,

http://vo.hse.ru

FROM THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION

history, philosophy, economics and other sciences. According to the Charter, lyceums "were completely equal" in rights and advantages with Russian universities, and graduates had the right to enter the civil service with a rank from XIV to IX grades according to the Table of Ranks - depending on their success [Regulations on the Lyceum; Charter of the Gymnasium of Higher Sciences of Prince Bezborodko; The charter of the Richelieu Lyceum; Charter of the Yaroslavl School of Higher Sciences]. Great importance in these educational institutions was attached to the education of students.

In Nikolaev time, the position of the lyceums was not regulated. The members of the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions (1826) admitted the existence of lyceums, according to M. M. Speransky, "more for their preservation and for extracting possible benefits from the sacrifices made by private people, rather than out of conviction of the essential need for their education" [Pavlova, 1991. S. 97]. Nevertheless, according to the Charter of 1828, there was no longer a place for lyceums in the country's public education system. Gradually they were transformed into specialized higher educational institutions with a limited set of subjects taught.

The Polish uprising of 1830-1831 had a significant influence on the fate of the lyceums, since the lyceum students took an active part in it. In 1831, the Volyn (Kremenets) Lyceum was closed and the University of St. Vladimir in Kiev. The gymnasium of higher sciences in Nizhyn in 1832 was transformed into the Physics and Mathematics Lyceum of Prince Bezborodko. In 1834, by decree of Nicholas I, the Demidov School of Higher Sciences was renamed the Demidov Lyceum, in which special attention was paid to legal and cameral sciences. In 1837, the new Statutes of the Richelieu Lyceum divided the lyceum and the gymnasium. The lyceum had two departments: physics and mathematics and law, they practically corresponded to university faculties, and the gymnasium became just a gymnasium. The Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum in 1828 was subordinated to the Chief Director of the Pages and Cadet Corps N.I.Demidov, and in 1831 - to the Main Directorate of Military Educational Institutions. In May 1835, its new Charter was approved [Egorov, 1993-1995; 2012. S. 89].

As a result of these transformations, Russian lyceums (except for Tsarskoye Selo) “have lost their previously unified task - to provide general education training for the civil service. Accordingly, the privileges of lyceums in relation to the production of graduates in the reign of Nicholas I were canceled ”[Andreev, 2012, p. 416].

Another type of privileged secondary educational institutions, gradually liquidated in the course of the reforms of Nicholas I, are noble boarding schools for the children of nobles at the already existing gymnasiums. As a rule, such educational institutions train

Educational issues. 2014. No. 4

E. A. Kalinina

Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I I_B

were located at the provincial gymnasiums. Their curricula only supplemented the main gymnasium course. Boarding houses made it possible for nobles and officials to provide education for their children without significant costs. They were kept at the expense of the sums collected from the pupils, and voluntary donations from the nobility.

In the preamble of the Imperial decree of March 29, 1830 "On the transformation of the noble boarding schools at St. Petersburg and Moscow universities in the gymnasium" it was said that "the noble boarding schools<...>in their current composition and with the rights and advantages granted to them in 1818 are incompatible with the new order of things and harm the fundamental teaching of noble youth in universities "[Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T. 5. Part I. S. 675]. In 1830, the noble boarding schools at the capital's universities were transformed into gymnasiums. By the end of the 1840s, only 47 noble boarding schools remained in Russia.

One of the forms of organizing state training of specialists for various departments was free schools for the children of officials. Their activities were regulated by a special Charter of schools for children of clerical workers (1828). In them, geodesy, forms of proceedings and judicial order with practical exercises were added to the established curriculum corresponding to the gymnasium course. Pupils who completed the full course of the school could continue their studies at the university or enter the civil service, where they received positions of clerical officers of the highest category. Such schools were opened in the departments of the Udelny, Postal, Ways of Communication, Gorny, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, etc.

In the field of primary education, private educational institutions were officially allowed to open under the Government's Regulation on Tutors and Home Teachers (1834). If before there was no control over private education, now the control of the provincial school authorities was established over the activities of home schools, and the teachers and mentors working in them were considered civil servants and received ranks starting from the XIV grade.

Much attention was paid to teaching peasant children. In the second quarter of the XIX century. due to the lack of funding from the treasury for new educational institutions, various departments were allowed to open and maintain schools. Judging by the Tables of educational institutions of all departments of the Russian Empire for 1834, primary schools created 16 departments, among them the Ministry of Public Education, the Ministry of the Court, the Military Department, the Ministry of Finance [Tables of educational institutions. S. 100-103].

http://vo.hse.ru

FROM THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION

In December 1830, the Regulation "On the Volost Schools of State Villagers" was published. Educational institutions of this type were opened under the volost boards for "disseminating the initial necessary information between the state villagers and preparing from among their capable volost and rural clerks" (Art. 2) [Collection of decrees and instructions for the Ministry of Public Education. T. II. Part I. Stb. 323-328]. As an experience, the Department of State Property ordered the organization of such schools in the St. Petersburg and Pskov provinces with the subsequent spread throughout Russia. For example, in the Olonets province, such schools were opened in 1833.

In 1836, the Holy Synod drew up "Rules for the initial education of the settlers, including schismatics, children", which were originally intended only for the Olonets province, but then "with the highest permission were extended to other dioceses where there are schismatics" [Rozhdestvensky, 1902. S. 283]. Henceforth, the priests were charged with the obligation to teach Russian peasant children to read and write Russian free of charge.

Since 1841, the Ministry of State Property, the Mining Department, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Specific Department also began to organize rural parish schools. Schools in state-owned villages were established on the basis of the general educational charter of 1828, teachers in them were parish priests.

The departments that financed the creation and activities of these or those schools, naturally, controlled their work. The endowment of many departments with the right to open educational institutions led to problems in their management: one and the same school was often controlled by two or even three departments. The educational part was under the supervision of the provincial directorate of schools. On-site inspectors experienced especially serious difficulties in surveying schools of different subordination. For example, in the Olonets province in November 1845, the superintendent of the Petrozavodsk district, GS Epifanov, “in order to avoid possible misunderstandings,” 1 according to the review of the Aleksandrozavodsk school, which is under the jurisdiction of the Olonets mining factories, made a written request to the school director M. I. Troitsky ... In particular, he asked to find out from the mining chief of the Olonets factories, "to what extent the aforementioned school is subject to the jurisdiction of a regular supervisor" 2. The mining chief replied that according to Art. 3 of the Charter of 1828 “The Alexandrozavodsk school should not be included in urgent reports on the state of the subordinate

1 National Archives of the Republic of Karelia. F. 17. Op. 6.D. 8/9. L. 568.

2 Ibid. L. 569.

Educational issues. 2014. No. 4

E. A. Kalinina

Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I I_B

by me schools, as well as in annual ”3. The superintendent G.S.Epifanov, on the instructions of the director, did inspect the factory school, and in the annual report to the directorate, the data about him were noted. This "willfulness" was pointed out to M. I. Troitsky, and the trustee of the educational district, G. P. Volkonsky, reprimanded him and demanded a written explanation of the reasons for what had happened.

The Ministry of State Property in its circular directives on the creation of schools in rural areas delineated the functions of their management and control of their activities. The authorities of the Ministry of Public Education were given the right to monitor the educational part and provide reports on the state of schools. Provincial directors of public schools and staff caretakers were required to inspect these schools and report the results of the examinations to the local chamber of state property and to the district boards, respectively. The ecclesiastical department had to take care of "the election of worthy mentors from local priests, deacons and clergymen, or from graduates of the seminary" [Voronov, 1855, p. 230]. The Ministry of State Property was in charge of the economic part of the schools. Their maintenance and support, that is, the entire material side of the educational business, were under the jurisdiction of the volost heads and district chiefs, who were charged with the duty of "instilling in the peasants the benefit and importance of the establishment of rural schools and in every possible way to persuade them to send their children to them" 4. The local chambers of state property were to notify the directors of public schools about the opening of each parish school and, at the end of the school year, provide them with statements on the number of teachers and students.

Nevertheless, it was not possible to avoid misunderstandings and disagreements between the departments in charge of public schools. Most of the controversy arose over the supervision of schools. In 1850, the Ministry of State Property sent to the Holy Synod a proposal to expand the powers of the Spiritual Department in organizing school affairs in rural areas, in particular, to transfer to it the management of the educational part of parish schools, which the institutions of the Spiritual Department would fulfill, based on the religious and moral image of the students. and overseeing the teaching of subjects and student success. In response to this proposal, on behalf of the Holy Synod, Archbishop Gregory of Kazan drew up a draft of a new Statute, which he retained for the diocese

4 Russian State Historical Archives. F. 383. Op. 6.D. 5094.L. 32.

http://vo.hse.ru

FROM THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION

Chial bishops have only the right to appoint parish priests, deacons and seminarians to teaching positions and to reward them for their service. Under this Regulation, the Ministry of State Property was in charge of building, hiring school buildings and supplying schools with school supplies. The departments were to decide the issues of opening and closing schools jointly. The Ministry did not approve this project and proposed to the Holy Synod to finalize it and clearly delineate the functions of departments. The parties failed to come to an agreement [Raev, 1860, pp. 150-153].

Undoubtedly, dual departmental subordination interfered with the work of schools: the number of inspections increased significantly, and with them the number of clerical work for teachers, superintendents and directors. In the second half of 1837, the Masel-Padanskoe school of the Povenets district of the Olonets province was inspected by an auditor from the Ministry of State Property of St. Petersburg, the dean of the Povenets parish, the superintendent of district schools, and with them the volost and district authorities. All of them not only checked the teacher's work, but also tested the students. A circular issued by the Ministry of Public Education in 1847 confirmed the competence of directors, district superintendents, and dean priests to inspect the schools of the Ministry of State Property [Kalinina, 2011, p. 237].

The result of the reforms of the reign of Nicholas I was, in particular, entrusting the school with the tasks of not only teaching, but also educating the younger generation in the spirit of the Uvarov triad "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality", the formation of moral foundations, integrity, love for the Fatherland, respect for the authorities. As S. S. Uvarov noted, “without proper organization of the education of the common people, the entire system of education is a building on the sand” [Khoteenkov, Cherneta, 1996, p. 148].

Educational charters, regulations, instructions of Nikolaev time contained instructions for strengthening educational work in educational institutions. For example, in the Charter of schools for children of clerical workers (1828) it is written that "the administration of the school pays special continuous attention to the main and general goal of education: the preservation and confirmation of good morality among students" (Article 74) [Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire ... T. 3. S. 162]. A special reservation about the main duty of the teaching staff is also made in the Charter of district and parish gymnasiums and schools (1828): this duty is to "explain to the students the holy truths of the Christian faith and the rules of virtue" [Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T. 3. S. 1102].

The reform initially did not affect the structure of management of educational institutions and control of their activities:

Educational issues. 2014. No. 4

E. A. Kalinina

Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I I_B

Minister of Public Education - Trustee of the educational district - University - Directorate of local public schools. But over time, at the initiative of the Ministry of Public Education, the order of management of secondary and lower schools was changed. On June 2, 1835, a new Regulation on the management of educational districts was issued, according to which local educational institutions were removed from the jurisdiction of the university and entered under the direct management of trustees. The regulation established that the trustees of the districts "receive reports from the directors of schools and gymnasiums and give them permission or submit their opinion for approval to the Minister of Public Education" [Regulations on educational districts ... p. 13]. Thus, since 1835, the provincial directorates of schools were completely transferred to the jurisdiction of the trustee of the educational district.

However, the connection of educational institutions on the ground with the university was not interrupted. The regulation provided that professors or adjuncts of the university would conduct reviews of educational institutions of the subordinate educational district at the personal invitation of the trustee, if such a trip did not interfere with the main activities of the teachers. In addition, § 12 of the Regulation stated that the trustee seeks the opinion of the university council for the improvement of teaching sciences, on the approval of additional courses and teaching aids for secondary and lower schools. The rector of the university was a member of the board of trustees, which resolved issues of direct organization of educational affairs at the local level (§ 19).

In the second quarter of the XIX century. the circle of people supervising schools increased, the educational department was controlled by the director and inspector of the gymnasium, county and honorary caretakers, trustees and deans.

The charter of 1828 significantly expanded the scope of activities of the provincial director of public schools for the management, supervision and control of the directorate. Article 166 determined that the director is “the owner of the gymnasium and elementary schools of all state schools located in the province; boarding schools and other private educational institutions of the province are subject to his supervision ”[Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T. 3. S. 1113]. The director was assisted by the gymnasium inspector to supervise the activities of the gymnasiums and boarding schools. On the recommendation of the director of the schools, the inspectors appointed the university (until 1835) and approved the trustee of the educational district. The inspector was the second most important official in the educational department after the head of the directorate. In the absence of the director, the inspector “entered into all his rights and obligations” (Article 196) [Ibid. S. 1116]. The supervision of parish, county and private schools in the county was carried out by the dean and staff county superintendent, who was fully accountable to the director of the schools. Article 94 of the Charter of 1828

http://vo.hse.ru

FROM THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION

charged the caretaker with the obligation to “watch over the actions of teachers and the success of students” [Ibid. S. 1107].

According to the Charter of 1828, it was supposed to appoint honorary superintendents for district schools "for better supervision of schools and to promote the success of their welfare" (Article 49) and honorary trustees for provincial gymnasiums, who were appointed by the university and approved by the Ministry of Public Education. Candidates for the position of honorary caretakers and trustees were elected from among the nobles and officials of a given county or province. The duties of honorary caretakers and honorary trustees were the same. They contributed money for the maintenance of schools, carried out repairs of school buildings, provided the poorest students with the necessary textbooks, etc. The honorary trustees paid special attention to the organization and operation of noble boarding schools at the gymnasiums. In 1840, the post of honorary guardian was also established to supervise the parish schools.

During the reign of Nicholas I, control over the activities of the provincial school directorates increased. A strict periodicity was introduced for the submission of reports on the state of educational affairs at the local level: reports on the provincial gymnasium were to be drawn up three times a year and a general report to the university should be made annually. The maintenance and verification of corded books on the income and expenses of educational institutions, the compilation of the service records of officials serving in the school department, reports on educational institutions, the formation of an archive of the directorate of schools, etc. were clearly regulated. by department. For failure to submit reports on time, school directors were punished with reprimands in the department, and for inaccurate information they were brought to trial.

The reporting scheme has remained unchanged since 1804. The supervisors of the district schools sent their reports on the school fees to the director of the schools, who made a general report on the province and sent it to the university. After approval by the district trustee, the university presented the full financial report for the educational district to the Minister of Public Education, who then sent the annual report for the whole of Russia to the State Department for Auditing State Accounts. The St. Petersburg educational district, unlike all other educational districts, sent "genuine private statements received from school directors" [On the procedure for auditing the reports of educational institutions. Stb. 5]. Accordingly, the Ministry of Public Education forwarded the same reports to the State Department for Auditing State Accounts. The reports of the provincial school directors were not checked at all, despite the fact that the general financial reports for the department were drawn up already since 1817.

Educational issues. 2014. No. 4

E. A. Kalinina

Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I I_B

Attraction of regional funds, private donations and amounts from other sources of funding to the budget of educational institutions complicated the control over the receipt and expenditure of funds. In 1825, the Committee of Ministers recognized that there was confusion and insufficient control in the reports on the receipts and expenditures of the amounts by the Ministry of Public Education. In January 1826, this problem became the subject of discussion in the Ministry of Public Education, where an explanation was made regarding the provision of financial reports for the school department.

The Minister of Public Education K. A. Lieven explained this violation by the complexity of drawing up a general report on the educational department, which included many different estimates of expenses and income, a report on the department itself, statements on the amounts for the construction and repair of school buildings, correspondence on accounting cases and much more. “With all the jealousy of officials, you can hardly manage to process the duties assigned to them,” noted the Minister of Education [On the procedure for auditing the reports of educational institutions. Stb. 7]. In addition, he complained that the staff of the Ministry of Public Education and the directorates of schools are insufficiently staffed and there is no one to draw up annual reports with a large volume of current work. As a result of these proceedings, the staff of the Ministry of Public Education was increased to collect information and prepare an annual report for the department. To help directors of schools from 1828, the positions of scribe and clerk were introduced "for the production of clerical affairs" in the educational department. In December 1830, special Reporting Rules were drawn up for the Ministry of Public Education, the articles of which determined a clear procedure for drawing up documents at the local level and in the center.

Thus, the reforms of the second quarter of the XIX century. touched upon various aspects of the organization of secondary and primary education. Firstly, decrees, statutes, regulations were issued for the organization of various types of educational institutions: gymnasiums, county schools, noble boarding schools, schools for the children of office workers, primary private and rural schools. As a result, the network of educational institutions has expanded significantly. Secondly, the rules of management, control and supervision in the educational department were clearly regulated. Much attention was paid to the legal and social status of Russian teachers. A progressive step in the development of labor legislation was the introduction of pensions for teachers: in November 1836, the Regulation on the production of ranks and on the determination of pensions and one-time benefits for the educational part of the Ministry of Public Education was issued, according to which teachers of general education schools received very significant

http://vo.hse.ru

FROM THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION

Literature

natural advantages. The right to pensions and lump-sum benefits was given only by a "blameless service, certified by the authorities" [Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T. II. Part I. S. 205].

The Charter of 1828 upheld the provisions of the Charter of 1804 regarding the age of admission to the gymnasium, the length of the school year, the vacancy of students, the schedule of the school week. The more fundamental provisions of the Charter have undergone significant changes: on the all-class nature of education, on the time limits of training courses, on training programs. "The introduction of the Charter of 1828 was a logical consequence of the general change in the internal policy of the government towards the conservation of the existing socio-political system and the containment of the activity of the forming civil society, free from state tutelage" [Filonenko, 2004, pp. 33-34].

The intensification of reaction during the reign of Nicholas I was expressed, in particular, in the increase in the number of officials who supervise and control educational institutions. The Ministry of Public Education, the Holy Synod, central audit committees, provincial orders of public charity and chambers of state property - all of them were supervisory organizations. The dual reporting system for schools has created an increase in the flow of paperwork and confusion in the supervisory system. The educational department is mired in paperwork - in the preparation of various reports, statements, reports, petitions. The more educational institutions there were in the province, the more difficult the reporting was. Seemingly elementary issues could not be resolved on the ground. For example, appointing gymnasium inspectors, introducing new training courses, granting summer vacations to teachers, remunerating teachers for good work, determining the rules of examinations required coordination with the central government. Proclaimed at the beginning of the XIX century. the relative freedom of university government in the subordinate educational district gradually receded into the past, its place was taken by a clear organization of control and supervision over the school department.

1. Andreev A. Yu. University in the Russian Empire XVI11 - first half of the XIX century. M .: ROSSPEN, 2012.

2. Vishlenkova E. A. Caring for the souls of his subjects: religious policy in the first quarter of the 19th century. Saratov: Saratov University Press, 2002.

3. Voronov AS Historical and statistical review of educational institutions of the St. Petersburg educational district from 1829 to 1853 St. Petersburg., 1855.

4. The highest rescript to the Minister of Public Education A.S. Shishkov on the establishment of the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions and its

Educational issues. 2014. No. 4

E. A. Kalinina

Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I I_B

dacha // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 2. SPb., 1830. T. 1. No. 338. S. 459-460.

5. The highest rescript to the Minister of Public Education A. S. Shishkov on the prohibition of admitting serfs to the gymnasium and universities // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 2.SPb., 1830. T. II. No. 1308. S. 675-677.

6. Demkov MI History of Russian pedagogy. Part III: New Russian pedagogy of the 19th century. M., 1909.

7. Egorov A. D. Lyceums of Russia (Experience of historical chronology). In 5 books. Ivanovo: Ivanovo State Academy of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 1993-1995.

8. Egorov A. D. Lyceums of the XIX - early XX century: chronology of life and work // Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities ISKhTU. 2012. No. 5. S. 83-93.

9. Kalinina EA School of the Ministry of State Property: Achievements and Problems // Education Issues. 2011. No. 1. S. 229-243.

10. Kostikova MN Religious policy of the Ministry of Public Education in educational districts of the Russian Empire in the 19th century. Kursk: Kursk State University, 2001.

11. Lalaev M. S. Emperor Nicholas I, the founder of the Russian school: a historical sketch. SPb., 1896.T. III.

12. Milyukov P. N. Essays on the history of Russian culture. Moscow: Progress, 1994.Vol. 2.

13. On the transformation of noble boarding houses at St. Petersburg and Moscow universities in the gymnasium // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 2. St. Petersburg, 1830. T. 5. Part I. No. 3569. P. 675677.

14. About volost schools of state settlers // Collection of decrees and instructions for the Ministry of Public Education. SPb., 1864.T. II. Part I. Stb. 323-328.

15. On the procedure for auditing the reports of educational institutions // Collection of decrees and instructions for the Ministry of Public Education. SPb., 1864.T. II. Part II. Stb. 5.

16. Pavlova S. Do you remember when the lyceum appeared ... // Public education. 1991. No. 7. S. 94-101.

17. Regulations on the Lyceum // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 1. SPb., 1830. T. XXXI. No. 24325. S. 310-323.

18. Regulations on educational districts of the Ministry of Public Education // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. 1835. No. 7. S. 13-14.

19. Regulations on the production of ranks and on the determination of pensions and one-time benefits for the educational part of the Ministry of Public Education // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 2.SPb., 1837. T. II. Part I. No. 9712. S. 203-207.

20. Polyakova NV Folding of the Russian education system // Socio-political journal. 1998. No. 3. S. 163-178.

21. Raev AF About measures to spread education between state and specific settlers // Journal of the Ministry of State Property. 1860. No. 9. S. 128-163.

22. Rozhdestvensky S. V. Historical overview of the activities of the Ministry of Public Education. 1802-1902 SPb., 1902.

23. Sergeeva S. V. Private education in Russia (last quarter of the 18th - first half of the 19th century). Penza: PGPU, 2000.

24. Tables of educational institutions of the Russian Empire of all types. SPb., 1838.

http://vo.hse.ru

FROM THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION

25. Charter of district and parish gymnasiums and schools // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 2.SPb., 1830. T. III. No. 2502, pp. 1097-1127.

26. Charter of the Gymnasium of Higher Sciences of Prince Bezborodko // Collection of decrees on the Ministry of Public Education. SPb., 1873. T. I. Stb. 1817-1835.

27. Charter of the Richelieu Lyceum // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 1. SPb., 1830. T. XXXIV. No. 26827. C. 877-878.

28. Charter of schools for children of office workers // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 2.SPb., 1830. T. III. No. 1814. S. 158-168.

29. Charter of the Yaroslavl School of Higher Sciences // Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Collection 1. SPb., 1830. T. XXVIII. No. 21606. C. 799-801.

30. Filonenko T. V. Reforms and counter-reforms: the history of school systems in Russia in the XIX - first third of the XX century. Voronezh: Central Black Earth Book Publishing House, 2004.

31. Khoteenkov V., Cherneta V. Graf Uvarov - minister and educator // Higher education. 1996. No. 2. S. 147-160.

32. Shishkov A.S. Notes of Admiral A.S. Shishkov. SPb., 1863.

Educational issues. 2014. No. 4

HISTORY OF EDUCATION

Reform of Secondary and Primary Education in Russia during the Reign of Nicholas I

Elena Kalinina Author

Candidate of Sciences in History, Research Fellow, Petrozavodsk State University. Address: 33 Lenina pr., Petrozavodsk, the Republic of Karelia, 185910, Russian Federation. Email: [email protected]

The paper investigates into the basic components of the education reform intro- Abstract duced during the reign of Nicholas I: abolishment of continuum in the schooling system, valid education at each stage in school, considerable changes to general school curriculum, enhanced control and supervision. A number of decrees, charters and regulations were issued to establish various types of educational institutions: gymnasia, district colleges, boarding schools, academies for clerks "children, private primary schools, and village schools. As a result, the network of educational institutions was essentially expanded. Lower educational institutions under the Most Holy Synod, the Ministry of State Property,

Department of Mining, and other agencies made primary education accessible to a lot of children in villages of state-owned peasants. The rules of control, management and supervision in the department of education were strictly defined, with much focus placed on the legal and social status of Russian teachers. Teacher retirement insurance became a progressive step in development of labor legislation. Reactionary policy in the reign of Nicholas I was intensified, in particular, through the growth in number of officers performing supervision and control over educational institutions. The system of dual school subordination increased the flow of paperwork and messed up the control system. Seemingly trivial issues could hardly be resolved locally. For instance, approval of the central government bodies was required to appoint gymnasium superintendents, to introduce new curricula, to provide summer vacations for teachers, to ensure incentives for good work, or to develop the examination procedure. The relatively independent university management in subordinate educational districts, which had been adopted in the early 19th century, was gradually fading out to give way to clear arrangement of control and supervision over the schooling system.

Ministry of National Education, education management, education system re- Keywords forms, all-class education, continuum in education, private schools, teacher retirement insurance.

Andreev A. (2012) Universitet v Rossiyskoy imperii XVIII - pervoy poloviny XIX v. References

Moscow: ROSSPEN.

Demkov M. (1909) Istoriya russkoy pedagogii. Ch. III; Novaya russkaya pedagogi-ya X! X v. , Moscow.

Egorov A. (1993-1995) Litsei Rossii (Opyt istoricheskoy khronologii). In five books. Ivanovo: Ivanovo State Architectural and Construction Academy.

Egorov A. (2012) Litsei XIX - nachala XX v .: khronologiya zhizni i deyatelnos-ti. Vestnik gumanitarnogo fakulteta IGKHTU, no.5, pp. 83-93.

Filonenko T. (2004) Reformy i kontrreformy; istoriya shkolnykh system v Rossii XIX - pervoy treti XX v. ... Voronezh: Central Black Earth Book Publisher.

Kalinina E. (2011) Uchilishcha Ministerstva gosudarstvennykh imushchestv: dos-tizheniya i problemy. Voprosy obrazovaniya, no 1, pp. 229-243.

Khoteenkov V., Cherneta V. (1996) Graf Uvarov - ministr i prosvetitel. Vysshee obrazovanie, no.2, pp. 147-160.

Kostikova M. (2001) Veroispovednaya politika Ministerstva narodnogo prosvesh-cheniya vuchebnykh okrugakh Rossiyskoy imperii v XIX v. ... Kursk: Kursk State University.

Lalaev M. (1896) ImperatorNikolai I, zizhditel russkoy shkoly: istoricheskiy ocherk, Saint Petersburg, vol. 3.

Milyukov P. (1994) Ocherki po istorii russkoy kultury, Moscow: Progress, vol. 2.

Ministry of National Education (1864) O poryadke revizii otchyotov uchebnykh zavedeniy. Sbornik postanovleniy i instruktsiy po Ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniya, Saint Petersburg, vol. 2, part 2, colm. 5.

Ministry of National Education (1864) O volostnykh uchilishchakh kazyonnykh poselyan. Sbornik postanovleniy i instruktsiy po Ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniya, Saint Petersburg, vol. 2, part 1, colm. 323-328.

Ministry of National Education (1830) Polozheniye o Litseye. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii, Collection 1, Saint Petersburg, vol. 31, no.24325, pp. 310-323.

Ministry of National Education (1837) Polozheniye o proizvodstve v chiny i ob opredelenii pensiy i edinovremennykh posobiy po uchebnoy chasti Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii, Collection 2, Saint Petersburg, vol. 2, part 1, no 9712, pp. 203-207.

Ministry of National Education (1835) Polozheniye ob uchebnykh okrugakh Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya. Magazine of the Ministry of National Education, no 7, pp. 13-14.

Ministry of National Education (1838) Tablitsy uchebnykh zavedeniy Rossiyskoy imperii vsekh vidov. Saint Petersburg.

Ministry of National Education (1873) Ustav Gimnazii vysshikh nauk knyazya Bezborodko. Sbornik postanovleniy po Ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniya. Saint Petersburg, vol. 1, colm. 1817-1835.

Ministry of National Education (1830) Ustav gimnaziy i uchilishch uyezdnykh i prikhodskikh. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii, Collection 2, Saint Petersburg, vol. 3, no 2502, pp. 1097-1127.

Ministry of National Education (1830) Ustav Rishelyevskogo litseya. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiyskoy im-

Educational Studies. 2014.No. 4

HISTORY OF EDUCATION

perii, Collection 1, Saint Petersburg, vol. 34, no 26827, pp. 877-878.

Ministry of National Education (1830) Ustav uchilishch dlya detey kantselyar-skikh sluzhiteley. Polnoe sobra-nie zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii, Collection 2, Saint Petersburg, vol. 3, no.1814, pp. 158-168.

Ministry of National Education (1830) Ustav Yaroslavskogo uchilishcha vysshi-kh nauk. Polnoe so-branie zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii, Collection 1, Saint Petersburg, vol. 28, no 21606, pp. 799-801.

Nicholas I (1830) O preobrazovanii blagorodnykh pansionov pri Sankt-Peter-burgskom i Moskovskom universitetakh v gimnazii. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii, Collection 2, Saint Petersburg, vol. 5, part 1, no 3569, pp. 675-677.

Nicholas I (1830) Vysochayshiy reskript ministru narodnogo prosveshcheniya A. S. Shishkovu ob uchrezhdenii Komiteta ustroystva uchebnykh zavedeniy i ego zadachakh. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii, Collection 2, Saint Petersburg, vol. 1, no.338, pp. 459-460.

Nicholas I (1830) Vysochayshiy reskript ministru narodnogo prosveshcheniya A. S. Shishkovu o zapreshchenii prinimat v gimnazii i universitety krepost-nykh krestyan. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii, Collection 2, Saint Petersburg, vol. 2, no 1308, pp. 675-677.

Pavlova S. (1991) Vy pomnite, kogda voznik litsey .... Narodnoe obrazovanie, no 7, pp. 94-101.

Polyakova N. (1998) Skladyvanie rossiyskoy sistemy obrazovaniya. Sotsialno-politicheskiy zhurnal, no 3, pp. 163-178.

Rayev A. (1860) O merakh k rasprostraneniyu obrazovaniya mezhdu gosudarst-vennymi i udelnymi poselyanami. Magazine of the Ministry of State Property, no.9, pp. 128-163.

Rozhdestvensky S. (1902) Istoricheskiy obzor deyatelnosti Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya. 1802-1902 gg. ... Saint Petersburg.

Sergeeva S. (2000) Chastnoe obrazovanie v Rossii (poslednyaya chetvert XVIII - pervaya polovina XIX v.). Penza: Penza State Pedagogical University.

Shishkov A. (1863) Zapiskiadmirala A. S. Shishkova. Saint Petersburg.

Vishlenkova E. (2002) Zabotyas o dushakh poddannykh: religioznaya politika v pervoy chetverti XIX v. ... Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House.

Voronov A. (1855) Istoriko-statisticheskoe obozrenie uchebnykh zavedeniy Sankt-Peterburgskogo uchebnogo okruga s 1829 po 1853 g. ... Saint Petersburg.

After the death of Alexander I and the Decembrist uprising, the reactionary rollback of the Russian education system continued. Already in May 1826, the imperial rescript formed a special Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions, which was instructed to immediately introduce uniformity into the educational system, "so that, after doing this, prohibit any arbitrary teaching of teachings, using arbitrary books and notebooks."

Nicholas I perfectly understood that the fight against revolutionary and liberal ideas had to start from schools and universities. The class character was returned to the education system: as P.N. Milyukov, “no one should receive an education higher than his rank”.

The general structure of the education system remained the same, but all schools were removed from the subordination of universities and transferred to the direct subordination of the administration of the educational district (i.e., the Ministry of Public Education). The teaching in the gymnasiums was greatly changed. The main subjects were Greek and Latin. "Real" subjects were allowed to be taught as complementary. The gymnasiums were viewed only as a stepping stone to the university; thus, given the class character of the gymnasiums, the raznochintsy were practically denied access to higher education. (Nevertheless, in 1853, at St. Petersburg University alone, they accounted for 30% of the total number of students). Noble boarding schools and private schools, which did not lend themselves well to total control by the state, were transformed or closed, their curricula had to be coordinated with the curriculum of public schools.

It was from the lips of the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov (in his address to the trustees of educational districts on March 21, 1833), the notorious formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" sounded. “Russian professors were now supposed to read Russian science based on Russian principles (PN Milyukov). In 1850, the new minister, Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, reported to Nicholas I that "all the provisions of science should be based not on speculation, but on religious truths and connections with theology." He also wrote that "people of the lower class, brought out of their natural state by means of universities ... much more often become people restless and dissatisfied with the present state of affairs ...".

In universities and other higher educational institutions, the election of rectors, vice-rectors and professors was abolished - they were now directly appointed by the Ministry of Public Education. Professors' travel abroad was sharply curtailed, student enrollment was limited, and tuition fees were introduced. Theology, church history and church law became compulsory for all faculties. Rectors and deans were supposed to observe that in the content of the programs that professors were obligatory presented before giving courses, "nothing was hidden that disagreed with the teachings of the Orthodox Church or with the way of government and the spirit of state institutions." Philosophy was excluded from the curriculum, which was recognized as unnecessary "with the present reprehensible development of this science by German scientists". The teaching of courses in logic and psychology was entrusted to professors of theology.

Measures were taken to strengthen discipline among students, i.e. to public and private supervision of them: for example, the inspector of Moscow University was ordered to visit the apartments of state-owned students "at different hours and always unexpectedly", to monitor their acquaintances, and their attendance at church services. The students were dressed in uniform, even their hairstyle was regulated, not to mention their behavior and manners.

In 1839, in some gymnasiums and district schools, real departments were opened (from the 4th grade), where industrial and natural history, chemistry, commodity science, accounting, bookkeeping, commercial law and mechanics were taught. The common people were accepted there; the task was to, as the minister directly wrote, "to keep the lower estates of the state in proportion to their civilian life and to induce them to confine themselves to the district schools", not allowing them to go to the gymnasium, and even more so to the universities. But objectively, this meant a departure from the dominance of classical education towards the real needs of society.

The policy of the government of Nicholas I in the field of education and the press is often characterized by historians as a struggle against them. This is hardly fair. The emperor, like Alexander I, considered it necessary to promote education. However, after the speech on December 14, 1825, the supreme power realized that enlightenment is, in the words of SS Uvarov, "a fire that not only shines, but also burns."
From the very first days of his reign, the new monarch seriously thought about what kind of enlightenment Russia needed.

Experience suggested that while studying, young people not only received knowledge for public service, but also became infected with free-thinking. The balance of benefits and disadvantages of education was a topic of discussion in society. N.M. Karamzin, A.S. Shishkov, A.S. Pushkin and others expressed their thoughts about this to the monarch.
In May 1826, Nicholas I established the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions. He was given the task of analyzing educational regulations and working out new ones. The program of A.S. Shishkov, approved in 1827, determined that education should be class-based and "considered with the future destiny of students." Particular attention was paid to the religious and moral education of students. These principles were not fully accepted by the emperor, but the charter lasted until 1835.
The most capacious foundations of national education were formulated by the Minister of Education, Count S.S. Uvarov. The very appointment of Uvarov to this post contradicts the opinion widespread in historiography about the "stupid performers" of the Nikolaev reign. Sergei Semenovich was an educated person, known for his literary predilections. Uvarov began his official career at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1800. In 1810, he left the diplomatic service and took the post of trustee of the St. Petersburg educational district. In this post, Uvarov became famous as the patron saint of science. In the trusteeship of Runich, Sergei Semenovich spoke in defense of the professors dismissed from St. Petersburg University. From 1818 until his death (1855) Uvarov was president of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The speech of the Decembrists, his failure forced many to rethink their attitude to power. Uvarov was one of those liberal figures who believed that only the government could carry out progressive transformations in the country. From confrontation with the supreme power, the intelligentsia must move to cooperation with it. This will give her the opportunity to influence the political course of the government. Uvarov did not recognize the legality of the revolution, condemned the military coup as a means
changes to the existing system. He saw salvation for Russia in the choice of the evolutionary path of development.
1. Guided by these convictions, in 1832 Uvarov presented to the emperor an exposition of his views on the nature and purpose of education in Russia. In historiography, his concept was called the "theory of the official nationality." Uvarov outlined ideas that were well known to Russian society. Russia, in the minister's view, is a country that has a development path that is different from that of Europe. European countries are shaken by civil wars because the society, which is based on Catholic doctrine, is hostile to the authorities. Russia is another matter. The system of relations between power and society was laid here by the Orthodox tradition. Therefore, Orthodox values, the promotion of the idea of consent between the authorities and the people should be at the center of school education. This idea unites the people and the autocracy. The people believe in the king, the king cares about the people. Both parties must be aware of their responsibilities to each other.
Nicholas I approved the document and made Uvarov the main executor of the proposed program. For 15 years, from 1833 to 1849, Sergei Semenovich headed the censorship and the Ministry of Education. At this time, the formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" was instilled in society in school classes, from university departments, from the pages of official magazines.
In 1835, on the initiative of Uvarov, a new regulation on educational districts was introduced. According to him, the trustees did not become representatives of the interests of the educational district before the supreme power, as it was before, but controllers and administrators. From now on, the trustee was to live in the center of the district and manage all educational institutions in it. The proportion of professional military personnel among district trustees has increased. The choice of the government fell, as a rule, on representatives of the local nobility, who knew the local conditions well.
In the same year, a new university charter was announced. The latter were placed in a more rigid subordination to the trustees. The university corporation retained the right to choose the rector, dean, professors, but more frequent cases of their approval in the ministry. The university court was destroyed. Student life was strictly regulated. The positions of student inspector and his assistants were introduced.
And yet, there is no reason to believe that the government of Nicholas I suppressed education in the country. It wanted to control and guide the thoughts of society. The Emperor believed that the humanities (philosophy, logic, etc.) and literature spoil the minds of young people. It is the representatives
these disciplines felt squeezed, constrained by the ideological framework. On the contrary, technical education and technical science during the reign of Nicholas I received a powerful impetus for development. Finance Minister Kankrin has developed a whole program to overcome the country's technological backwardness from Europe. He considered technical education to be one of the important means for this. The Institute of Technology, opened in 1828 in St. Petersburg, was called to become the coordinator of the educational program in this area.
In addition, in 1840, at some Russian universities, including at Kazan, cameral categories were opened to train legally and economically literate managers for industry. At the same time, it became widely practiced to read public lectures by university professors. So in the 1850s, a course of lectures by Kazan professor M.Ya. Kittara gained popularity.
Of course, it is impossible to overcome the technical illiteracy of the population and the technological backwardness of the country in one leap. Public lectures were attended not by breeders and manufacturers, but by high school students and students. And the technological institute provided knowledge on the organization of mainly light industry sectors, and the country needed technological education of specialists for heavy industry. But the development of technical sciences was given an impetus.
The development of the peasant question stimulated the development of agricultural educational institutions. The Ministry of State Property of Count Kiselev promoted the novelties of agricultural sciences through a special "Agricultural newspaper", subsidized translations and publications of foreign literature on agronomy. In 1848 the Gorygoretsk Agricultural School was transformed into a higher agronomic educational institution. The government sent the most capable university graduates on internships abroad to train agricultural teachers.
Overall, government action in the field of education has resulted in a significant increase in the number of educational institutions in the country. The number of gymnasiums has almost doubled, and the number of students in them has increased by 2.5 times. Higher technical and agricultural schools were opened in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The government was guided by the same logic in its censorship policy. In 1826, a censorship charter was issued, proposed by A.S. Shishkov. Contemporaries called him "cast iron". The minister was so carried away by the fight against freethinking that he ordered to ban any publication that could be interpreted as disrespect for the authorities and religion.
However, as the course of domestic policy was being developed, the emperor considered it necessary to abandon such a strict censorship charter. In 1828, a new, more relaxed version appeared. The General Directorate of Censorship was subordinate to the Ministry of Public Education, but it included not only the presidents of the Academy of Sciences and Arts, but also officials of the III Department of the H.I.V. Chancellery, officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Local committees, chaired by the trustees of educational districts, were subordinate to the main department.
In addition to general censorship, the charter established departmental censorship committees. Spiritual publications were controlled by the Synod, medical journals and books were checked by the Medical Academy. Section III did not disregard not a single forbidden composition, not a single author noticed in sedition. In the 1830s. a number of socio-political publications were closed: among them "European" by P.V. Kire ^ askog ^ "Moscow Telegraph" by N.A. Polevoy, "Telescope" by N.I.Nade'Lng. Literary newspaper "A. A. Delvig. At the same time, the government encouraged the publication of scientific and technical journals, Uchenye Zapiski. Until 1848, universities had the opportunity to correspond with foreign scientists.
Revolutionary events in Europe 1848-1849 so frightened the government that it took a number of urgent measures to shield Russian society from the "Jacobin" ideas. In February 1848, a secret committee was set up to read all printed works and report them personally to the emperor. Many Russian universities were on the verge of closing. Uvarov, who came out with an article in their defense, was replaced as Minister of Education by P.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, a supporter of the ideas of the Shishkov administration. Links with European universities were cut off. The period of cultural isolation of Russia began. The time of the "Iron Curtain" left a heavy memory of itself among contemporaries.
So, the reign of Nicholas I was the time when Russia witnessed the terrible revolutionary events. The echo of social upheavals in neighboring countries echoed in the country's public life. The desire to prevent the revolutionary development of events determined the course of the government, its changes.
At the stage of 1826-1848. the government considered the implementation of changes to be the best guarantee against a political explosion. At this time, measures are being prepared and carried out in relation to the peasants; introduced improved
wandering into the state apparatus; legislation is being developed; financial reform is under way, education is encouraged.
However, the scope of the revolutionary events of 1848-1849. in Europe contributed to the strengthening of the protective-reactionary tendencies in the government. Russia is being isolated from the European community politically and culturally.

From childhood, the boy enthusiastically played war games. At the age of six months he received the rank of colonel, and at three years old the baby was presented with the uniform of the Life Guards Cavalry Regiment, since from birth the child's future was predetermined. According to tradition, the Grand Duke, who is not the direct heir to the throne, was prepared for a military career.

Family of Nicholas I: parents, brothers and sisters / Wikipedia

Until the age of four, the upbringing of Nicholas was entrusted to the court maid of honor Charlotte Karlovna von Lieven, after the death of his father, Paul I, the responsibility was transferred to General Lamsdorf. The home education of Nikolai and his younger brother Mikhail consisted in the study of economics, history, geography, jurisprudence, engineering and fortifications. Much attention was paid to foreign languages: French, German and Latin.

If lectures and classes in the humanities were given to Nikolai with difficulty, then everything related to military affairs and engineering attracted his attention. In his youth, the future emperor mastered playing the flute and took drawing lessons. Acquaintance with art allowed Nikolai Pavlovich to later be known as a connoisseur of opera and ballet.

Since 1817, the Grand Duke was in charge of the engineering part of the Russian army. Under his leadership, educational institutions were created in companies and battalions. In 1819, Nikolai contributed to the opening of the Main Engineering School and the School of Guards ensigns.

Wikipedia

In the army, the younger brother of Emperor Alexander I was disliked for such character traits as excessive pedantry, nit-picking and dryness. The Grand Duke was a person tuned in to indisputable obedience to the laws, but at the same time he could flare up for no reason.

In 1820, Alexander's elder brother had a conversation with Nicholas, during which the current emperor announced that the heir to the throne, Constantine, had reneged on his obligations, and the right to reign had passed to Nicholas. The young man was struck by the news: neither morally nor intellectually Nikolai was not ready for the possible management of Russia.

Despite the protests, Alexander in the Manifesto indicated Nikolai as his successor and ordered to open the papers only after his death. After that, for six years, the life of the Grand Duke was outwardly no different from the previous one: Nicholas was engaged in military service, supervised educational military institutions.

The reign and uprising of the Decembrists

On December 1 (November 19, O.S.), 1825, Alexander I suddenly died. The emperor was at that moment far from the capital of Russia, so the royal court received the sad news a week later. Because of his own doubts, Nicholas initiated the oath of allegiance to Constantine I among the courtiers and military. But at the State Council, the Tsar's Manifesto was promulgated, indicating the heir to Nikolai Pavlovich.

Russian painting

The Grand Duke was still adamant in his decision not to assume such a responsible position and persuaded the Council, Senate and Synod to take the oath of office to his elder brother. But Konstantin, who was in Poland, had no intention of coming to Petersburg. Nicholas, 29, had no choice but to agree with the will of Alexander I. The date of the swearing-in before the troops on Senate Square was set on December 26 (December 14, O.S.).

On the eve, inspired by free ideas about the abolition of tsarist power and the creation of a liberal system in Russia, the members of the Union of Salvation movement decided to take advantage of the uncertain political situation and change the course of history. At the proposed National Assembly, according to the organizers of the uprising, it was supposed to choose one of two forms of government: a constitutional monarchy or a republic.

Nicholas I on Senate Square on December 14, 1825 / Russian State Library

But the plan of the revolutionaries failed, as the army did not go over to their side, and the Decembrist uprising was quickly suppressed. After the trial, five organizers were hanged, and the participants and sympathizers were sent into exile. The execution of the Decembrists K.F. Ryleev, P.I. Pestel, S.I.

The wedding of the Grand Duke to the kingdom took place on August 22 (September 3, O.S.) in the Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral. In May 1829, Nicholas I entered into the rights of the autocrat of the Kingdom of Poland.

Domestic policy

Nicholas I turned out to be an ardent supporter of the monarchy. The views of the emperor were based on three pillars of Russian society - autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality. The monarch adopted the laws in accordance with his own unshakable attitudes. Nicholas I strove not to create a new one, but to preserve and improve the existing order. As a result, the monarch achieved his goals.

Diary of a porcelain doll

The internal policy of the new emperor was distinguished by conservatism and adherence to the letter of the law, which gave rise to an even greater bureaucracy in Russia than it had before the reign of Nicholas I. The emperor began his political activities in the country by introducing severe censorship and putting in order the Code of Russian laws. A unit of the Secret Chancellery was created, headed by Benckendorff, which was engaged in political investigations.

The printing business has also undergone reforms. The State Censorship, created by a special decree, monitored the purity of printed materials and seized suspicious publications opposing the ruling regime. Serfdom was also transformed.

Russian museums

The peasants were offered uncultivated land in Siberia and the Urals, where the farmers moved regardless of their desire. Infrastructure was organized in new settlements, new agricultural technology was allocated to them. Events created the preconditions for the abolition of serfdom.

Nicholas I showed great interest in innovations in engineering. In 1837, on the initiative of the tsar, the construction of the first railway was completed, which connected Tsarskoe Selo and St. Petersburg. Possessing analytical thinking and foresight, Nicholas I used a wider track than the European one for railway tracks. Thus, the tsar prevented the risk of enemy equipment penetrating deep into Russia.

Russian painting

Nicholas I played an important role in streamlining the financial system of the state. In 1839, the emperor began a financial reform, the goal of which was a unified system for calculating silver coins and bank notes. The appearance of kopecks is changing, on one side of which the initials of the reigning emperor are now printed. The Ministry of Finance initiated the exchange of precious metals held by the population for credit tickets. For 10 years, the state treasury has increased the reserve of gold and silver.

Foreign policy

In foreign policy, the tsar sought to reduce the penetration of liberal ideas into Russia. Nicholas I strove to strengthen the position of the state in three directions: western, eastern and southern. The emperor suppressed all possible uprisings and revolutionary riots on the European continent, after which he rightfully became known as the "gendarme of Europe."

hermitage Museum

Following Alexander I, Nicholas I continued to improve relations with Prussia and Austria. The tsar needed to strengthen his power in the Caucasus. The Eastern question included relations with the Ottoman Empire, the decline of which made it possible to change the position of Russia in the Balkans and on the western coast of the Black Sea.

Wars and uprisings

Throughout his reign, Nicholas I conducted military operations abroad. Having barely entered the kingdom, the emperor was forced to take up the baton of the Caucasian War, which his older brother began. In 1826, the tsar unleashed the Russian-Persian campaign, which resulted in the annexation of Armenia to the Russian Empire.

Monument to Nicholas I in St. Petersburg / Sergei Galchenkov, Wikipedia

In 1828 the Russo-Turkish War began. In 1830, Russian troops suppressed the Polish uprising, which arose after the wedding of Nicholas in 1829 to the Kingdom of Poland. In 1848, the uprising that broke out in Hungary was again extinguished by the Russian army.

In 1853, Nicholas I began the Crimean War, participation in which turned out to be the collapse of his political career for the ruler. Not expecting help from Britain and France to the Turkish troops, Nicholas I lost the military campaign. Russia lost influence in the Black Sea, having lost the opportunity to build and use military fortresses on the coast.

Personal life

Nikolai Pavlovich was introduced to his future wife, the Prussian princess Charlotte, the daughter of Frederick Wilhelm III, in 1815 by Alexander I. Two years later, the young people got married, which consolidated the Russian-Prussian union. Before the wedding, the German princess converted to Orthodoxy, received a name in baptism.

Wikipedia

For 9 years of marriage, the first-born Alexander and three daughters - Maria, Olga, Alexandra were born in the family of the Grand Duke. After accession to the throne, Maria Feodorovna presented Nicholas I with three more sons - Constantine, Nikolai, Mikhail - thereby providing the throne with heirs. The emperor lived in harmony with his wife until his death.

Death

Seriously ill with the flu at the beginning of 1855, Nicholas I courageously resisted the illness and, overcoming pain and loss of strength, at the beginning of February went to a military parade without outerwear. The emperor wanted to support the soldiers and officers who had already lost in the Crimean War.

In cinema, the memory of the era and the emperor is captured in more than 33 films. The image of Nicholas I hit the screens back in the days of silent cinema. In contemporary art, the audience remembered his film incarnations performed by actors,.

In 2019, the director's historical drama "" was released, which tells about the events leading up to the Decembrist uprising. He played the role of the emperor.

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution

Higher professional education

Birsk Branch of Bashkir State University

Social and Humanitarian Faculty

Department of Russian History and Documentation

Final qualifying work

in the specialty 032600 "History"

Development of secondary and higher education in Russia at the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th century.

Saysanova Valentina Yurievna

6th year student of correspondence department

Scientific adviser: Nazmutdinova O.R.

Introduction

Chapter I. Government policy in the field of secondary and higher education in the second half of the XIII-early XIX century

1 Russian universities under Catherine II

2 Development of public education under Alexander I

3 Education reform under Nicholas I

Chapter II. Education reform of 1863

1 Strengthening the scientific and educational potential of universities

2 Formation of the teaching staff of the university

3 Student Question of the Charter of 1863

Chapter III. Comparative analysis of the education system before the reform and after the reform of 1863

Conclusion

List of sources and literature used

Introduction

Relevance of the research topic. The role of education at the present stage of Russia's development is determined by the tasks of its development within the framework of a democratic and legal state, a market economy, the need to overcome the danger of the country's lagging behind world trends in economic and social development.

In the modern world, the importance of education as the most important factor in the formation of a new quality of the economy and society is increasing along with the growing influence of human capital. The Russian education system is able to compete with the educational systems of advanced countries. At the same time, broad public support for the current educational policy is needed, the restoration of responsibility and an active role of the state in this area, a deep and comprehensive modernization of education with the allocation of the necessary resources for this and the creation of mechanisms for their effective use.

Of particular importance is the study of the experience of transforming the system of secondary and higher education during the second half of the 19th century, when the processes of developing and legalizing a new educational policy, forming and implementing a strategy for renewing secondary and higher education took place. Much of that valuable theoretical and practical legacy, created including by public thought, has been lost in this area today. This circumstance gives rise to an objective need for a new understanding of it.

During the period under review, Russian universities and gymnasiums were repeatedly transformed, during which their organizational and educational structure was formed. The study of the history of reforming the domestic secondary school and universities makes it possible to determine those essential characteristics that have traditionally been characteristic of them. The search for modern ways of harmonious development of secondary and higher education cannot take place without relying on the analysis of historical events, taking into account the mistakes and achievements of the previous time. Reconstruction of the complex process of reforming universities and secondary schools with a retrospective nature of historical research has a practical advantage - the well-known completeness of the experiment, knowledge of the results and long-term consequences of the innovations.

In the second half of the XIX century. Feudal Russia passed to capitalist Russia on the basis of a large-scale peasant reform and other transformations

Appeal to understanding the history of university and secondary school reforms in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. makes it possible to better understand the essence of the changes that were taking place then, which began after the abolition of serfdom, to explain the reasons for the socio-political and spiritual and moral crises, to assess the positive results of the socio-economic and cultural development of the country, to identify the motives for the sharp turns of the political courses of the autocracy.

The study of the history of the reforming of secondary schools and universities in the era of great reforms and conservative modernization of Russia in the second half of the 19th century, which paved the way for the country's capitalist development, which gave it the opportunity to move to a new qualitative level, commensurate with the level of advanced Western powers, is quite natural and legitimate interest.

The object of the research is general education and higher schools of post-reform Russia.

The subject of this research is the historical process of reforming the Russian secondary and higher general education schools in the period from 60s to 70s. XIX century.

The purpose of the work is to formulate an idea of the reform process in the field of general secondary and higher education in the second half of the 19th century on the basis of an analysis of the practice of transforming secondary and higher education, various sources, and the results of theoretical developments.

Research objectives:

consider the historical background of reforms in public education in the second half of the 19th century;

to determine the stages of reforming and modernization of gymnasium and university education, their justification and characteristics;

Analyze the mechanism for the preparation and implementation of government legislative decisions on reform and modernization in the field of secondary and higher education;

Consider the main legislative documents in the field of secondary and higher education;

to conduct a comparative analysis of higher and secondary education before the reform and after the reform of 1863.

The practical significance lies in the fact that the materials and conclusions contained in the work can be used: in the course on the history of Russia, the history of pedagogy, for the development of special courses on the history of public education and culture of Russia.

When writing the thesis, the generalizing works of modern authors devoted to the methodology of studying transition processes and reforming society were of great importance for us. Among them, it is necessary to note the scientific works of A.I. Avrus, T.B. Zemlyanoi, O.N. Pavlycheva, F.A. Petrov, V.I. Zhukova, V.V. Zhuravleva, S.A. Kuleshova, Sh.M. Munchaeva, B.N. Mironova, V.M. Ustinova and others.

To understand the essence of the pedagogical problems of education and upbringing, to better understand the meaning of social pedagogical movements and private initiatives that had a great influence on the reform steps of the government in the field of secondary and higher education, we were helped by the works of modern historians of pedagogy (A.N. Shevelev, M.V. Mikhailova , B.K. Tebieva, T.B.Solomatina and others), dedicated to the history of public education in pre-revolutionary Russia.

It should be noted the works of V.R. Leikina - Svirskaya, G.I. Shchetinina, R.G. Eimontova.

The monographic studies of R.G. Eimontova. The works revealed the active participation of the public in the preparation of draft charter.

Within the framework of the topic under study, the monograph by V. A. Tvardovskaya "The ideology of post-reform autocracy (Katkov M. N. and his publications), as well as the chapter written by her in the collective monograph" Russian conservatism of the 19th century "

A bibliographic reference book edited by E.D. Dneprov, which presents almost all publicistic and historical works of the pre-revolutionary and Soviet period.

In writing the thesis, we relied on the textbook of V.A. Tomsinov. University reform of 1863 in Russia.

The next volume of the "Great Reforms" series contains analytical articles and documents reflecting the preparation and implementation of the University reform of 1863 in Russia. It publishes records of discussions that were conducted on the nature and significance of universities, the content of the new University Charter, the curriculum of the Faculty of Law; cites the texts of the General Charter of the Imperial Russian Universities of 1863 and the accompanying Nominal Decree of Alexander II, given to the Governing Senate. The book also publishes legislative acts regulating the organization and activities of the Academic University in St. Petersburg and the Imperial Moscow University in the 18th century, the statutes of the imperial Russian universities in 1804 and 1835. They allow a deeper understanding of the essence of the changes in the system of Russian university education, introduced by the University reform of 1863. In the introductory articles of Professor V.A. provides an overview of the history of university education in Russia in the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries, shows the methodology for preparing the university reform of 1863, reveals the meaning of its main measures and their significance for the further development of Russian universities.

It is necessary to pay attention to the book "Alexander II and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia" by Zakharova L.G.

The idea of this publication is revealed in the introduction "The Way to the Theme", which is devoted to the history of the creation and the fate of the book "Autocracy and the Abolition of Serfdom in Russia. 1856-1861 "(Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1984). The monograph examines the development of a government program for the abolition of serfdom in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in the Secret and Main Committees for Peasant Affairs and, especially, in the Editorial Commissions of 1859-1860, which prepared the "Regulations of February 19, 1861". The personal role of Alexander II at all stages of the creation of this legislation is shown, as well as the activities of people who were preparing the reform: N.A. Milyutin, Ya. I. Rostovtseva, Yu.F. Samarin, P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shanskiy, book. V.A. Cherkassky and others. Supplements supplement and develop the questions posed in the monograph: the influence of the peasant reform of 1861 on all the transformations of the 1860-1870s, connected by a single ideology into a common system and constituting the era of the Great Reforms; the role of Alexander II in this process and his tragic end as a man and tsar-liberator; the state of modern historiography (domestic and foreign) of the Great Reforms.

In the monograph of E.P. Tolmachev. "Alexander II and His Time" is considered one of the brightest periods in the history of the Russian state, associated with the life of Emperor Alexander II. One of the topics considered by the author is the Great Reforms of the second half of the 19th century.

A detailed biography of Alexander II is in the book by N.S. Goppen “Crowned Muscovite. Essay on the reign of Emperor Alexander II ”(S.-P, 1901). The author, with details known only to a contemporary, briefly and figuratively tells about the birth of the future emperor in the Moscow Kremlin, about the program of his upbringing and education, about accession to the throne, about the coronation, the reforms carried out and about the last year of his reign and the death of March 1, 1881.

It is necessary to note the book "Alexander II - Tsar-Liberator (1855-1881)" (compiled by M. Kolyvanova) this edition continues the series "Russia - the way through the ages". It tells about the events that took place in the Russian Empire during the reign of Tsar-Liberator Alexander II.

After the revolution of 1917, the history of Russian universities was not given due attention for several decades, for the very fate of universities until the early 30s. hung by a thread. In the 20-40s. several books of essay-jubilee scientific and reference character were published. And only in the 50s. interest in this issue revived again, which was largely due to the anniversaries of the Moscow, Kazan, Kharkov, Saratov universities, which were celebrated in those years. One of the first was published an article by the famous historian E.N. Gorodetsky Soviet reform of higher education in 1918 and Moscow University (Bulletin of Moscow State University, 1954, No. 1). In subsequent years, the main attention of Soviet historians was paid to the study of certain periods in the history of Russian universities, mainly in the 19th century. It should be noted the works of A.E. Ivanova, G.I. Shchetinina, R.G. Eimontova. All of them began with the publication of articles, and ended their research with solid monographs that represent a significant contribution to the historiography of Russian universities. Their works provided the most in-depth study of the history of Russian universities in the second half of the 19th century. - the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1998, the publication of a multivolume monograph by FV Petrov, devoted to Russian universities in the first half of the 19th century, began.

As if summing up some of the results of the study of domestic higher education before 1917, a group of authors published in 1995 a book Higher education in Russia: an outline of the history before 1917 The monograph contains a lot of interesting factual material, the appendices are of great value. However, only one chapter of the book is specifically devoted to universities, and therefore many aspects of university life are only indicated in the text.

Chapter 1. Government policy in the field of secondary and higher education in the second half of the XIII-early XIX century

1 Russian universities under Catherine II

In the history of Russian public education, the end of the 17th, the beginning of the 18th century. were marked by the separation of secular education from the spiritual. Already by the time of the reign of Catherine II, the domination of estate-professional education, introduced by Peter I, was shaken, and a new task was opened up for the government: to lay the principle of general and all-class education in the foundation of the policy of public education. The first steps in this direction were taken even under the predecessors of Catherine II: the Academic and Moscow universities, the academic, Moscow and Kazan gymnasiums were the first experiments in establishing general education schools open to young men of different classes. But these various educational institutions suffered from one fundamental flaw: they were not subordinate to one general plan, they were not linked into a single system.

Classical professional education of the first half of the 18th century. closed in isolated cycles, determined by the professional interests of each individual class. Meanwhile, general and non-class education in its essence requires all types of schools (primary, secondary and higher) to be combined into one system, since the expediency of each individual type of general education school is always determined by the position it occupies in the complete education system. In reality, the vital interests of schools at all levels have always organically united them into one system. The university, on the one hand, had to feed on scientists who had received theoretical scientific training (for this, the Academy of Sciences); on the other hand, he could not do without the gymnasium as a preparatory school for him. In turn, for the gymnasiums, the university has always been a source of teaching staff, and the content and level of the gymnasium course were consistent with the interests of university science.

The Catherine's era brought new trends in the field of public education, its formation becomes a state task. The highest authorities are showing a desire for a broad setting of public education and the search for new means to solve the central issue of the system of general and non-class education. Special commissions and individuals in the 60s and 70s. XVIII century various educational reform projects were created. All of them were based on the idea of general education. But they were not destined to come true.

One of the important reasons for the failure that befell many projects of educational reforms in the 18th century was the absence of such competent authorities that would specifically be in charge of the matter of public education. All attempts to oblige the general administration bodies to carry out educational and administrative functions have always been unsuccessful. Realizing this, Catherine II, by a decree of 1782, established a special educational and administrative body - "the commission on the establishment of public schools", which was entrusted with the task of introducing the Austrian system of public schools in Russia. The activities of this commission, called in the charter of public schools (August 5, 1786) "the main school government", created a solid foundation for building a complete system of public education. According to the charter, major and minor schools were established. The main schools were created in provincial cities and were supposed to train teachers for small schools. The plans conceived soon yielded tangible results. So, if in 1872, when the reform began in Russia, there were only 8 main schools, where 26 teachers taught 474 boys and 44 girls, then in 1800 there were already 315 of them, in which 790 teachers worked, giving knowledge 18 128 young men 1787 girls.

In 1787, a commission led by P.V. Zavadovsky developed a plan for the establishment of universities in Russia, which were supposed to crown the network of primary and secondary educational institutions in the country. They needed students with secondary education. The functions of secondary educational institutions were entrusted to the main public schools, which, according to the charter of 1786, were

were supposed to become a reliable basis for universities. The university indicated the ideal level to which high school was to rise; the task of preparing students for the university was clearly defined and the volume of secondary education, which in turn made it possible to draw a more precise boundary between secondary and primary education. According to the project of 1787. Russian universities were to consist of three faculties: philosophy, medicine and law, and the three-year course of the faculty of philosophy was intended to serve as the basis for two higher specialized faculties. From the point of view of the interests of organizing the system of general education, the Faculty of Philosophy acquired particular importance, since "the philosophical doctrine united the main popular schools with the higher sciences." Traditions of "state benefit" on the project determined the purpose of universities: "The main goal of each university is to provide the state with people who can send services, which in the sending one presuppose knowledge of some higher sciences, which is why universities are called higher schools."

The charter of 1786 contained the idea of a non-class school: public schools were open to children of all classes. In the plan-project of 1787, the same idea was defended: “A student title is not a merit or rank, but only a way to acquire them, for every student is a student, even if he is not enrolled in students, therefore, this title can be accepted on himself a person is not free without any prejudice to the sciences. " In the 1787 draft itself, the idea was expressed that higher education could not be organized without a broad establishment of secondary and lower schools.

However, the establishment of universities never took place. The lack of the required number of professors, the lack of material resources did not allow the completion of the creation of the "system" of education, the approval of general, all-class education as a necessary basis for higher professional education.

Thus, in the history of Russian public education, the end of the 17th, the beginning of the 18th century. were marked by the separation of secular education from the spiritual. The higher authorities strove for a broad staging of public education and the search for new means to solve the central issue of the system of general and non-class education.

2 Development of public education under Alexander I

The creation of an integral system of public education undertaken by Catherine II, after the failure that befell the university project, stopped halfway, and the creative activity of the commission on public schools gradually came to a standstill.

It was revived at the beginning of the next century, in the new conditions of state and public life. Alexander I and his advisers on the Secret Committee held broad views on the role of education in public life, which was seen as a panacea for backwardness and a reliable basis for future development. Effective governance, economic progress, military power, social cohesion, and the country's well-being, all required the training and education of both the professional elite and the working classes. The circumstances of the first years of the reign of Emperor Alexander I linked the educational reform with the administrative one. Among the first eight ministries, the Ministry of Public Education was established in 1802, headed by Count P.V. Zavadovsky, who was in this position from September 1802 to April 1810. At the beginning of 1803, the Commission on Schools was transformed into the Main Board of the MNP Schools. The decree of September 8, 1802 required the commission to begin the implementation of a new educational reform with the establishment of universities, that is, from the very point at which the reforms of Catherine II stopped. On the initiative of the Minister of Education, new universities were opened: Derpt (1802), Vilensky (1803), Kazan (1804) and Kharkov (1805). In the development of a new system of public education, M.M. Speransky, academician N.I. Foos, F.I. Jankovic de Mirievo, A. Czartoryski. On the basis of their projects, a general reform plan was drawn up - "Preliminary rules of public education" (January 24, 1803). This basic law formulated the purpose and content of the new educational system as follows: "for the moral education of citizens, according to the duties and benefits of each state, four types of schools are determined: 1) parish schools, 2) county schools, 3) provincial or gymnasiums and 4) universities."

The preliminary rules outlined a curriculum reform program. Its detailed development was the charters of universities and schools subordinate to them (gymnasiums, county and parish schools), approved on November 5, 1804. Both of these documents were the cornerstones on which the policy of education in Russia was based throughout the 19th century. In six educational districts, into which most of the country's territory was divided, universities were not only educational, but also administrative centers. The management of each educational district was represented by a trustee living in St. Petersburg. The provincial gymnasiums were under the direct jurisdiction of the university. The directors of the grammar schools have general control over the district and similar schools, and the superintendents of the district schools oversee the order in the parish schools. These latter are entrusted to the "enlightened and well-meaning trusteeship" of the landowners, the parish clergy and the most honorable inhabitants. The maintenance of educational institutions, except for parish ones, was provided by the treasury, orders of public charity and the income of urban societies. According to university statutes focused on German models, universities were given privileges in the form of autonomy and academic freedom, university councils, consisting of members of the teaching staff, had the right to elect rectors, deans and other bodies, independently administer justice, impose their own censorship and choose textbooks. In the university charters, a range of subjects was designated that were supposed to introduce students to the knowledge of branches of knowledge useful for the state. They also indicated that a young person can become a student, who will provide a certificate of his condition to the board of the university, as well as a certificate of the headmaster of the gymnasium on behavior, diligence and success in the taught sciences. In those years, high school graduates did not take entrance exams to universities. Admission to universities and persons who graduated not from gymnasiums, but from other types of secondary educational institutions (theological seminaries, new cadet corps, commercial schools) was allowed.

The commission preparing the reform studied the educational systems of other countries and, first of all, France, where the principles of building curricula in the spirit of rationalism were interesting. One of the authors of the French educational system was the philosopher, educator, mathematician and politician Jean Antoine Condorcet. Like the Condorcet project, the new charter laid the principle of continuity at the basis of the Russian education system. Each stage, from elementary school to university, provided a complete education and at the same time served as preparation for the next level. Instruction at the parish school lasted for one year; the district school - two years. The charter emphasized the continuity of the program of parish and district schools. The gymnasiums had 4 years of study, and their curriculum was linked to the curriculum of the district schools. Educational districts were also in charge of private educational institutions. This system did not include only the schools of the Holy Synod, although the links between theological and secular educational institutions were not interrupted. It was an integral reform that united all categories of general education schools, from university to parish schools, into one system. Access to higher levels depended only on the ability of the students; schools were free, and scholarships were provided for disadvantaged students. The most prepared high school graduates continued their education at universities and other higher educational institutions of the Russian Empire (Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, Mining School, Medical-Surgical Academy, Demidov Legal Lyceum).

The reform was aimed at providing the state with a skilled labor force and a literate, able-bodied population; in particular, educational institutions were supposed to train teachers, doctors, administrative workers and technical specialists, which were so necessary for the country. Therefore, in the training courses, the emphasis was on practical, “modern subjects”. Primary education according to the new system was adapted to the dissemination of progressive methods of agriculture, industrial and trade innovations among the people. In each of the 42 Russian gymnasiums, that is, secondary schools, which arose for the most part from the main public schools and were located in provincial cities, eight teachers taught. They taught a 4-year course of study in a wide range of subjects, preparing businessmen or civil servants. The central link in the educational system was the gymnasium - the key to university education, which paves the way for a well-to-do public service. It concentrated the functions of academic and university gymnasiums of the 18th century, a significant part of the functions of male noble educational institutions and even part of the tasks of the main public schools. Given this state of affairs, the course of the gymnasium education turned out to be unusually difficult. As an institution preparing for the university, the gymnasium had to preserve the Latin language in its curriculum. From the cadet corps, the "graceful sciences", German and French, passed over to her; finally, the main public school gave her mechanics, hydraulics and "other parts of physics that are most needed in a hostel", technology and commerce, with the addition of all this "fashionable" for the beginning of the 19th century. "Political economy". The cumbersomeness of the gymnasium curriculum caused many methodological difficulties. Many nobles objected to the "redundant" or "encyclopedic" secondary school curriculum in an effort to avoid high school education. However, the charter of 1804 fixed a very definite degree of dependence between education and place in the table of ranks, which would increase the low educational level of civil servants. To strengthen this dependence, Secretary of State M.M. Speransky, by a decree of August 6, 1809, connected the promotion with the exam for the rank. Under the new regulation, for the transition to the eighth and fifth grades of the civil service, it was required to present a university certificate or successfully pass tests in fifteen subjects of the university program. But the education that was given by the gymnasiums according to the charter of 1804 suffered from the one-sidedness of preparation for civil service.

Fundamental changes to the secondary school development plan were made by S.S. Uvarov. At the beginning of November 1811, the project for the reform of the St. Petersburg gymnasium, proposed by him, was approved, and by the end of the decade, the capital's experience had already been extended to all educational districts. While “reforming” the provincial gymnasium, he reported to the Minister of Public Education A.K. Razumovsky: “Having made sure that the course of study and the way of teaching in the St. Petersburg Provincial Gymnasium has not at all corresponded to the intentions of the government, I consider it necessary to draw your attention to some changes. The aim of the gymnasium in general is to prepare students for taking academic or university courses of science, why the gymnasium course should not include such subjects that are presented to one university. " On this basis, Uvarov excluded from the curriculum of the gymnasium university courses - political economy, business sciences, finance, aesthetics and philosophical grammar. And on the contrary, subjects that "serve as the first foundation of true enlightenment in all states and in every century" are included in the plan: the law of God, domestic and classical languages, history, geography, mathematics, grammar, logic, rhetoric, domestic and foreign literature. The term of study at the gymnasium was increased to seven years .

Thus, the plans of the gymnasium and the university were quite sharply differentiated. The gymnasium was freed from the subjects of "real education" and turned into a class, preparatory to the university or directly to the bureaucratic service, an educational institution with a program that was completely inappropriate both for the industrial strata of society and for that part of the ruling class itself, whose life began more and more to communicate with the interests of capital. But the biggest innovation was that the gymnasium course included the teaching of classical languages, which were considered as the basis of education. The needs of the merchants and the bourgeoisie were satisfied in the opening of special classes at the district schools and gymnasiums, where a bias was made towards science, which provided preparation for activities in trade and industry.

Other principles proclaimed by the reform - all-class and free education, did not have any legal restrictions. However, in practice, their implementation met with great difficulties.

Thus, we can draw the following conclusion. The circumstances of the first years of the reign of Emperor Alexander I linked the educational reform with the administrative one. Among the first eight ministries, the Ministry of Public Education was established.

3 Education reform under Nicholas I

Further reorganization of the educational system was associated with the events of December 1825, the Decembrist uprising, which had a huge impact on all aspects of the social life of the Russian Empire. The new emperor Nicholas I saw one of the reasons for the revolutionary actions in the imperfection of the educational system. The Minister of Public Education, Admiral A.C. Shishkov, who was in this position in 1824-1828. He believed that public education should be national in content and help to strengthen the autocracy.

A.C.'s views Shishkov also conducted it through the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions, which worked from 1826 to 1835. The committee prepared: the charter of district and parish gymnasiums and schools (1828), the charter of St. Vladimir University in Kiev (1833), the regulations on educational districts (1835) and the General charter of imperial Russian universities (1835) ...

The development of the charter of the gymnasiums proceeded in sharp disagreements over the nature of the gymnasium education. Some of them believed that the gymnasium could fulfill its role only as an educational institution "providing the necessary preliminary knowledge to those preparing to enter universities"; others (Shishkov), on the contrary, admitted a certain independence of the gymnasium course, as "providing methods of decent noble education for those young people who do not intend or cannot continue their studies at universities." The defenders of the first opinion reduced the task of preparing for the university mainly to the study of ancient languages and literature; supporters of the completeness of the gymnasium course, on the contrary, placed the native language, literature, history, foreign languages and law at the center of study. In search of a compromise between these two opposite and one-sided solutions to the issue, the majority of the committee members outlined three options for the direction of development of gymnasiums: 1) the duality of the type of secondary school in the form of the parallel existence of classical gymnasiums that prepare for universities and special schools that provide a complete education; 2) the bifurcation of the upper grades of the gymnasium, branching education along the same two lines; and 3) a single type of gymnasium with a narrowly classical curriculum (without Greek), supplemented by teaching of native and new foreign languages and some natural science disciplines. The author of the last proposal was S.S. Uvarov. Nicholas I supported his version, which was included in the approved charter. The new statute put forward the goal for the gymnasiums, on the one hand, to prepare for listening to university lectures, on the other - "to provide ways of a decent upbringing." The gymnasium consisted of seven classes. The number of subjects and the volume of their teaching in the first three grades of all gymnasiums was the same, and, starting from the 4th grade, the gymnasiums were divided into gymnasiums with and without Greek. At the head of the gymnasium was still the director, who was assisted by an inspector, elected from among the senior teachers, to supervise the order in the classrooms and manage the housekeeping in the boarding schools. The title of honorary trustee was also established, for general supervision over the gymnasium and boarding school with the director. In addition, pedagogical councils were formed, whose task was to discuss educational issues in the gymnasium and take measures to improve them. Ancient languages and mathematics were recognized as the main subjects. Most of the study time - 39 hours - was devoted to the study of the Latin language and ancient literature as knowledge that teaches the mind "to be attentive, industrious, modest and thorough". The number of lessons on the Law of God and the Russian language increased. The remaining subjects remained: geography and statistics, history, physics, new languages, calligraphy and drawing. Charter of gymnasiums and schools from 1828 to the 60s. has not been revised. However, it was amended by separate orders of the government. So, in 1839, a special "Regulation on real classes at educational institutions of the Ministry of Public Education" was published, and in 1849-1852. significant changes were made to the curriculum of the gymnasiums.

Further transformations of the public education system of Nikolaev time were again associated with the name of Count S.S. Uvarov, but already as the manager of the Ministry of Public Education from March 1833 (from April 1834 - minister). From a young age he was convinced that education is a necessary prerequisite for progress in any field, and the level of enlightenment is a criterion in assessing any country.

With the active participation of S.S. Uvarov was prepared and on June 25, 1835. the regulation on educational districts of the Ministry of Public Education was approved, which created the necessary legal foundations for effective management of the education of the Russian Empire. According to the document, all educational institutions were divided into eight districts: which were headed by universities with a trustee.

By the mid-30s. XIX century. Russia had six universities: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Kharkov, Kiev (St. Vladimir) and Dorpat. The life of the first four of them was regulated by the charter prepared by the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions, and the highest approved on July 26, 1835. Two other universities, Dorpat and Kiev, functioned on the basis of statutes specially prepared for them, since the first was German in composition, and the second Polish, and a different approach was needed to them.

According to the charter of 1835 (as opposed to the charter of 1804), the management of each of the universities was entrusted to the special leadership of the trustee of the educational district - a government official appointed by the emperor. The trustee became the sole head of all educational institutions included in the district, which were previously subordinate to universities. The trustee was assisted by a council, which included an assistant trustee, a university rector, an inspector of state schools, two or three directors of gymnasiums and an honorary trustee from noble local people. It was also expected that the trustee would continue to seek assistance from the university council on purely academic matters. However, in practice, this did not happen. The new centralized system for managing educational districts has led to the restriction of university autonomy and academic freedoms. As a result, the role of the trustee and his office in the management of the university has increased significantly. Its legal functions in relation to universities were significantly expanded, which was enshrined in a number of articles of the charter. The primary responsibility of the trustee was to ensure that the university staff met their duties rigorously, and to observe their ability to work, morality, and dedication. If the teacher did not meet these requirements, the trustee could reprimand him or fire him if he considers him unreliable. At his own discretion, the trustee could head the university council, consisting of professors and an elected rector. In addition, the trustee was the head of the university board, which, in addition to him, included the rector, deans of faculties and an inspector. The governing board was entrusted with the responsibility of the university council to take care of finances, material, staff and office, as well as the function of maintaining order at the university. The previous university proceedings were abolished and transferred to local justice authorities. And finally, now the trustee, and not the rector, appointed an inspector to supervise the students, and not from among the professors, as it was before, but from among the officials.

Charter 1835 retained the previous principle of the formation of teaching staff: the filling of vacancies in the departments was carried out by the election of councils, for which the applicant had to present his scientific works and read three trial lectures; the Minister of Education approved the elected candidates for professors and adjuncts, and at his own discretion could appoint them to the vacant departments.

Professors who had served for 25 years were awarded the title of honored and given a full salary pension. If he wanted to continue serving at the university, the department was declared vacant and the council carried out the procedure for re-election. If the professor again occupied the department, then, in addition to the full salary, for five years he also received a pension.

The professors' colleges retained such academic rights as the distribution of training courses, scholarships, discussion of teaching aids and teaching methods. The university council fully retained the functions of overseeing its own academic life: professors retained the privilege of duty-free and uncensored import of materials for scientific studies, the right to independently censor dissertations and scientific works of teachers, as well as university publications published with public funds, etc. the council continued to elect rectors and deans from among its professors for a four-year term, with their subsequent confirmation by the emperor and minister, respectively. Rector's powers were expanded by giving them the right to reprimand university professors and officials if they performed their duties in bad faith. The professors were relieved of administrative duties, which, as a rule, were a burden to them and performed poorly by them. The new charter encouraged professors to focus on research and student education. Each university created a university-wide department of theology, church history and church jurisprudence for all students of the Greek-Russian faith.

Researchers recognized that the university charter of 1835 was a step back in matters of university autonomy compared to the charter of 1804, but was more liberal than the charters of German universities, and even more so in France, where universities were not recognized by the scientific communities at all.

Together with the charter of 1835, the states of the universities were also approved. The Moscow, Kazan, Kharkov and Kiev universities had three faculties: philosophy, law and medicine. Until the end of the 1840s. the Faculty of Philosophy was divided into two departments: verbal and natural. There was no medical faculty at St. Petersburg University, but in 1856 one more was introduced - oriental languages. The term of study at the Faculty of Medicine was five years, the remaining four years. For the Moscow, Kazan and Kharkov universities, the following staffs were determined: 26 ordinary and 13 extraordinary professors, one professor of theology, eight adjuncts, two dissectors with two assistants, four foreign language lecturers, an art teacher and an arts teacher (fencing, music, dance, horse ride). A somewhat smaller staff was allocated for the St. Petersburg and Kiev (which also initially did not have a medical faculty) universities. Ordinary and extraordinary professors were required to have a doctorate in science, adjuncts - a master of science.

The legislation of tsarist Russia included university professors in the general system of the bureaucratic hierarchy. They were endowed with the appropriate class ranks and wore uniforms. The rector was entitled to the rank of the 5th grade, the ordinary professor - the 7th grade, the extraordinary professor, associate and prosecutor - the 8th grade. The presence of a scientific degree when entering the civil service also gave the right to ranks: the doctor of sciences received the rank of V grade, master - IX, candidate - X grade. Towards the end of their teaching career, many professors rose to the rank of actual privy councilor, and some reached the rank of privy councilor. The acquisition of scholarship opened the way for those who did not have a noble rank. Legislatively, the rank of the IX class was given to the personal, and the IV class (the actual state councilor) hereditary nobility.

Russian students in the second half of the 1930s, as before, were subdivided into self-employed and state-owned students. The first group was the most financially secure. Many of them were natives of the university city and lived in their parents' houses or in rented apartments and independently paid their tuition fees, after which they could freely find employment. State students lived in boarding houses at the university on full state support and were obliged to work for six years after completing the course for the corresponding purpose. Students were supposed to wear a dark blue uniform, decorated with gold buttons and gold-embroidered buttonholes, with a cocked hat and a sword. According to the charter of 1804, students were held accountable for their behavior before the professors-inspectors and an independent university court. For Nicholas I, this system seemed insufficient. In the charter of 1835, new rules of student conduct and supervision were legalized. Now the senior inspector of each university, a high-ranking and highly paid official, was called to his post from the civil or military service and had to, relying on the staff of his deputies, monitor the piety, diligence and cleanliness of students.

Some of the students at the end of the university were awarded the title of a real student and the rank of the XII grade. Students who successfully passed the exams and submitted a dissertation or were previously awarded a medal for an essay were awarded the degree of candidate of sciences and the right to the rank of X class. University graduates had legal grounds to enter government or military service, to apply for honorary citizenship.

In general, the charter of 1835 ensured the progressive development of Russian universities until the mid-40s, Russian universities in the second quarter of the 19th century. were very close to the best universities in Europe.

The progressive development of Russian universities was facilitated by the government's policy aimed at the formation of the teaching staff of the highest qualifications - a difficult issue for higher education. Initially, universities added to the ranks of teachers by inviting foreigners, but the language barrier made this practice difficult, and the national pride of Russians demanded that it be stopped. Under the Minister of Education A.N. The Golitsyn tried to train professors abroad from among the Russian students sent there, but this did not diminish the need of Russian universities for qualified teaching personnel. A breakthrough in this direction was made with the opening in 1827 of the Professorial Institute at the University of Dorpat. Only two graduates of the Professorial Institute (1828 and 1832) gave 22 professors of various disciplines, who returned to their native universities and occupied the departments. In 1838, the Professorial Institute was closed, but the practice of sending young scientists (two interns from each university) annually abroad at the expense of the treasury to prepare for a professorship continued, giving rise to new talented names of domestic scientists.

On the basis of the charter of 1835, the development of higher education was carried out for the next almost twenty years, up to the beginning of the 60s. XIX century, when universities began to rightfully occupy a leading place in the general education system of Russia. Universities made a significant contribution to the development of science not only at the theoretical level, but also took an active part in the development of its applied direction. Courses in various disciplines (agronomy, industrial chemistry, commodity science, mechanics, medicine, architecture, etc.) taught in them contributed to the formation of the composition of specialists in various fields of the country's national economy.

By the middle of the 19th century, under the influence of the historically conditioned tasks of the country's socio-economic development, national universities overcame the boundaries strictly defined by the autocratic government - the training of educated officials - and became the most important social institution that determined the direction of the forward movement of the entire educational system of the country, its cultural appearance in the sphere of material production. and spiritual condition.

The tsar himself was of the opinion that “not to enlightenment, but to idleness of the mind, more harmful than idleness of bodily powers, to the lack of solid knowledge should be attributed to this willfulness of thoughts, this destructive luxury of half-knowledge, this impulse to dreamy extremes, of which the beginning is the corruption of morals, and the end is destruction. " He strove to build a system of public education and upbringing that would leave no room for the revolutionary aspirations of young people. The creation of a protective direction in education became the goal of his educational policy. However, the "protectiveness" of the policy of Nicholas I in the field of education was not identical with the concept of "conservatism" in the same area. Nicholas I and his ministers of public education, proceeding from political considerations, purposefully adjusted the educational policy towards the constant strengthening of protective measures, thereby deviating from the basic educational documents - the statutes of gymnasiums in 1828 and universities in 1835. As a result, by the mid-50s gt. XIX century. Russian education found itself in a state of crisis. The formation of negative phenomena in the functioning of the education system took place gradually and was associated with the specific names of the highest government officials from the Ministry of Education, who acted in line with the general regulations of the emperor. Among them, a special role belongs to S.S. Uvarov.

Uvarov laid the foundation for the ministry's activities on a broad program built on the historical principles of Russian statehood and culture. "To adapt the general world enlightenment to our people's way of life, to our people's spirit", to establish it on the historical basis of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality, according to Uvarov, was necessary to preserve the power and prosperity of Russia. The essence of this famous program, which expressed the general protective nature of the policy of Nicholas I, was revealed by the minister in his letter-report to the emperor on November 19, 1833.

Establishing the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions, Nicholas I singled out the lack of "proper and necessary uniformity" as the main problem and repeated this criticism again when Uvarov took office. Uvarov accepted the royal order for execution. Already in 1843, he reported to the emperor: “During the reign of Your Majesty, the main task of the Ministry of Public Education was to collect and unite in the hands of the government all mental forces, until then fragmented, all the means of general and private education, left without respect and part without supervision, all the elements that have taken an unreliable or even perverse direction, to assimilate the development of minds to the needs of the state, to ensure, as much as human thought is given, the future is in the present. " Uvarov believed that his vocation in the ministerial post was to lay a solid foundation for Russian enlightenment, while betting on the qualitative, and not on the quantitative, side of the development of all its constituent parts.

Uvarov used centralization, unification and inspection both to control the education system and to improve it. First of all, this concerned the increase in the number of teaching staff, which were sorely lacking in order to properly expand the network of educational institutions. Uvarov also realized that the current teachers were too poorly trained to improve the quality of teaching. On his part, attempts were made to improve the material well-being of teachers, steps were taken to strengthen the Main Pedagogical Institute and improve the training of teachers not only in gymnasiums, but also in elementary schools. But even in this matter, protective interests overshadowed common sense. In the 1940s, again, as in the 1920s, hostility to teachers' institutes increased, to which young people of ignoble descent aspired to graduate from the 14th grade. To many, including the sovereign, it seemed that this undermined the foundations of the social system. In 1844, Uvarov was forced to block access to the institute for members of the "taxable" estate on the grounds that there were supposedly enough people from the "free" classes; the number of students has been cut in half. In 1847, the second category of the Main Pedagogical Institute, where teachers for elementary schools were trained, was again closed, and in 1858 the entire institute. Teachers were now to be trained only in universities that recruited students mainly from the upper strata of society.

Nikolai was extremely concerned about stability in the country and understood that revolutions arise for both political and social reasons, and therefore demanded that the Russian education system in no way undermine the existing social order. In the tsarist rescript, devoted to the discussion in the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions of the issue of accessibility for representatives of various classes of educational institutions, in general, the need for education for all strata of society was recognized, but at the same time it was noted that each person should acquire only "knowledge, the most for him the necessary ones, who could serve to improve his lot, and not being lower than his condition, also did not strive to rise beyond measure above that in which, according to the ordinary course of affairs, he is destined to remain. "

The educational policy of the Nikolaev era constantly emphasized the estate character of educational institutions subordinate to the Ministry of Public Education. Even in the documents of 1803-1804, although the principle of the general availability of the new educational system was proclaimed, there were many restrictive formulations that reduce the real opportunities for persons in a disadvantaged state to study in secondary and higher educational institutions.

Similar restrictions were retained in the updated statute of 1828. For persons of the "not free" class, the possibility of admission to a secondary or higher educational institution was conditioned by the need to obtain an official release from previous duties. The relative accessibility of education for all Russians has become possible since the time of Peter I, when the country's social structure was already difficult to regulate. In the future, the estate structure became more and more mobile, and it was no longer possible to arrange a school strictly on the basis of estate succession. Therefore, the school system was built in such a way that it corresponded to the class needs, but would also allow a certain social mobility, without making it a goal.

In 1837 they were placed before the serfs. This year, by the highest order, a Committee was formed to revise the existing regulations on the admission of people of not free states to educational institutions. It included M.M. Speransky, Count Benckendorff, ministers of public education and internal affairs. As a result of the work of this Committee, in May 1837, the tsar's rescript appeared in the name of Uvarov, in which the minister Nicholas I instructed to strictly observe the rule according to which for the children of serfs who did not have a certificate of their dismissal, education was limited only to lower schools (parish or district) ... “In blocking harmful consequences” - this is how the purpose of this measure was defined, which testifies to the understanding of the danger of allowing the natural mental development of the serf, which will inevitably lead to a protest against slave bonds.

Restriction measures extended to other estates. In 1840 Uvarov, after visiting the University of St. Vladimir in Kiev turned to the trustees of educational districts with a secret circular, in which it was stated that “when accepting students, it is necessary to pay some attention both to the origin of young people who devote themselves to higher academic pursuits, and to the future that opens before them. With the growing striving for education everywhere, the time has come to think that this excessive striving for higher subjects of learning does not shake in some way the order of the civil estates, arousing in young minds an impulse to acquire luxurious knowledge of the people ... ".

By the 40s, tuition fees have become a serious regulating instrument of the social composition of secondary and higher educational institutions. Introduced back in 1819, it acquired extremely important political and social significance in the Nikolaev era. At the initiative of the emperor, the question of measures to restrict access to gymnasiums and universities for youth from tax-paying estates was again discussed. As an effective restrictive measure, it was proposed to increase tuition fees in gymnasiums and universities.

In 1845, following an increase in tuition fees at universities and gymnasiums, on the initiative of Emperor Nicholas I, the issue of hindering access to the gymnasiums for common people was considered. In June 1845, on a memorandum from the Minister of Education on tuition fees, Nicholas I wrote: "Consider, are there any ways to obstruct access to the gymnasium for commoners?" The result of the minister's considerations was the imperially approved decree, which appeared in the same year, prohibiting admission to gymnasiums without dismissal certificates from societies. Thanks to this measure, Uvarov noted in his note, “gymnasiums will become primarily a place of education for the children of nobles and officials; the middle class will turn to the district schools ”.

In 1847, a ban on the right of volunteers to attend lectures at the university followed. Young men from the taxable estates were ordered "in no case to be exempted from tuition fees." In 1848, another increase in tuition fees, promised by the emperor, took place.

The preventive measures of Nicholas I and his government against the penetration of persons of a non-free state and commoners into secondary and higher educational institutions basically achieved their goal. In 1833, approximately 78% of the total number of students admitted to the gymnasium were representatives of the upper classes - the nobility, officials and merchants of the first guild, 2% were clergymen, and the rest - from the lower and middle strata 45... Similar statistics persisted in the second half of the 40s. According to P.N. Milyukov, raznochintsy in gymnasiums and universities accounted for 20-30% at that time.

Building a system of secondary school education, Uvarov paid a lot of attention to training programs in them. A significant factor in raising the level of training of future officials was the expansion of the gymnasium program from four to seven years, so graduates entered the service not from the age of fifteen, as before, but from the age of eighteen, and with a more significant knowledge base. In addition, the seven-year program made it possible to thoroughly prepare young people for admission to university.

The disturbing messages of 1848 from the countries of Western Europe, where students and student youth were drawn into the revolutionary movement, forced the government of Nicholas I to take a number of measures aimed at protecting the “student youth” from the harmful influence of ideas destroying the foundations of autocracy. Among them was the secret circular-leadership of Minister Uvarov to the trustees of educational districts from 1848, where the political aspect was highlighted: "So that the pernicious wisdom of criminal innovators could not penetrate our numerous educational institutions," he considered it his "sacred duty" to convert the attention of the trustees to "the spirit of teaching in general in schools and, in particular, in universities", "the reliability of the bosses", "private educational institutions and boarding schools, especially those supported by foreigners."

In the conditions of revolutionary events in Western Europe, the government paid close attention to the self-employed (studying at their own expense) students of Russian universities, consisting of representatives of the privileged classes. They represented the bulk of university students. In order to exclude the possible penetration of "harmful" ideas into their environment, it was decided to limit the desire of the noble youth for university education and send a certain part of it to enroll in military educational institutions that were experiencing difficulties with recruiting. As a result, in April 1849 S.S. Uvarov was declared state secretary of the imperial chancellery A.C. Taneyev's highest order to limit the number of self-employed students at each university to a set of 300 people, "with the prohibition of admission of students until the available number enters this legalized amount." This decision did not apply to medical students, since Uvarov convinced the tsar that with a catastrophic shortage of doctors, refusing to enroll in the medical faculty would further reduce the number of doctors that the military department was counting on. The minister managed to persuade the tsar to abandon the reduction of state-owned students, proving to him their good intentions and desire to become teachers, so urgently needed in various parts of Russia.

After the revolutions began to shake Europe in 1848, and the Petrashevtsy affair arose in the Russian capital, the position of Uvarov, who now seemed to Nicholas I too liberal, was shaken. In October 1849 S.S. Uvarov resigned, which was accepted.

Prince P.A. is appointed to the post of head of the educational department. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, who served as assistant minister of education since 1842. His appointment to this important post came as a complete surprise to him. On January 26, 1850, he presented to Nicholas I a note "on the need to transform teaching in our universities in such a way that henceforth all the propositions and conclusions of science would be based not on intellectual, but on religious truths in connection with theology." The tsar liked this idea, and he hastened to appoint P.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov as minister, whose post remained vacant for a long time. Acting in the spirit of the instructions of the emperor, the MNP took a number of steps aimed at changing the curricula of educational institutions in the system of secondary and university education. The first of the disciplines studied at the universities was the exclusion of the state law of the European powers, "shaken by internal sedition and rebellions in their very foundations, due to the shaky beginnings and uncertainty of conclusions." The same fate befell philosophy since 1850, which was recognized as useless: "with the modern reprehensible development of this science by German scientists", it was necessary "to take measures to protect our youth from the seductive philosophies of the latest philosophical systems." Philosophy departments were closed, and teachers were transferred to others or fired. Reading logic and experimental psychology was forbidden to secular teachers and entrusted to professors of theology.

The organizational structure of universities has changed. Philosophical faculties, since the science of "philosophy" itself was expelled, were divided into two independent faculties: history and philology and physics and mathematics. By a ministerial circular of November 5, 1850, pedagogical institutes at universities were abolished and departments of pedagogy were established in their place. Two reasons for this step were noted in the ministerial document: firstly, the institutes did not give future teachers the knowledge of the complete system of education and upbringing of youth; secondly, professors who were not familiar with the rules of pedagogy as a science could not be reliable guides for students. The ministry approved the proposal put forward earlier by Buturlin's committee on the obligatory presentation of lithographic copies of their lectures by professors. In January 1851 Shirinsky-Shikhmatov sent instructions to the universities for the rectors and deans of faculties, "On strengthening supervision of university teaching." Each teacher had to present to the dean a detailed program of the course with an indication of the literature used, which was approved by the faculty meeting and by the rector. In addition, the dean was obliged to monitor the exact correspondence of the lectures of professors to the programs and report the slightest deviation, "even harmless", to the rector, who was exempted from teaching by instructions and focused on control functions. The lectures of the professors were subject to verification in the manuscript. Requirements for dissertations increased in terms of their content being well-intentioned, and the publicity of scholarly disputes during the defense of dissertations was limited. To complete all the protective and restrictive steps in higher education, in 1852 the government decided to prohibit inviting foreign scientists to vacant departments, although 32 out of 137 departments at universities were vacant. Thus, the fundamental provisions of the university charter of 1835, which declared academic freedom, were finally undermined.

As a continuation of the previous policy, measures were taken to change the social composition of the student body. For this, tuition fees were increased and the admission of young people of non-noble origin was limited.

In March 1850, the MNP's monopoly on censorship of teaching manuals was broken. Now they found it necessary, in addition to general censorship, to subject textbooks to "special, most careful and rigorous examination", for which a special committee was created under the chairmanship of the director of the Main Pedagogical Institute I.I. Davydov. The task of the next secret committee was to observe not only the spirit and direction of this kind of essays, but also the "method of presenting them" .

The instruction on the observance of the estate principle in the gymnasiums continued to be strictly observed. This was confirmed by both the large number of noble boarding houses, and the predominantly noble composition of students in gymnasiums. According to the member of the General Board of Schools A.C. Voronov, in 1853 in the St. Petersburg district, out of 2831 gymnasium students, 2263 were nobles, or 80 percent. The estate principle of organizing educational institutions with an appropriate teaching composition was vigilantly guarded throughout the reign of Nicholas I.

In addition to the district schools intended for the bourgeoisie and small merchants, in addition to the parish schools for the peasants and theological schools, during the reign of Nicholas I, educational institutions appeared at each department. The War Ministry had cadet corps, cadet schools and other special educational institutions. The Naval Ministry also had its own cadet corps and its own cantonist schools. The Ministry of the Interior, the department of the court, the department of mining engineers (factory schools, etc.) had their own schools.

The imposition of stagnant principles of the structure of academic life, excessive regulation of the educational process, over-organization of forms of education intensified the process of stagnation in education. Many of those who studied at that time in universities in their memoirs tell about the rather low quality of teaching a number of subjects, about the formal approach to assessing the assimilation of educational material by students. The exams required a verbatim retelling of the text, often without understanding its meaning.

The Ministry of Public Education, in an atmosphere of toughening of the political course of the autocratic government in relation to gymnasiums and universities, lost its independence. Uvarov and Shirinsky-Shikhmatov "became victims of that storm that hit our already weak and shaky enlightenment." But the education system turned out to be strong enough and withstood the blows of censorship.

After the death of Shirinsky-Shikhmatov in 1853, his deputy A.S. Norov (1795-1869), the son of a Saratov landowner, a provincial leader of the nobility, a participant in the Battle of Borodino, an invalid of the Patriotic War of 1812, an educated man with a literary name, a man, according to his contemporaries, "weak in character and kind." His arrival could not make fundamental changes in the government's policy in the field of education, since it was still difficult to overcome the personal interference of the reactionary emperor and the committees he created in the affairs of the educational department. The position of the minister of public education was determined by the strict observance of the rules of the game proposed by the emperor, which were based on the subordination of the urgent pedagogical tasks of education to political goals.

However, it was under Norov that the creation of certain prerequisites for overcoming the crisis and the subsequent reform of secondary and higher education began. During the lifetime of Emperor Nicholas I, the new minister tried to lift some restrictive measures against universities. In particular, he obtained the tsar's consent to increase the enrollment of students by 50 people in metropolitan universities and to celebrate the centenary of Moscow University, presented the tsar "a plan of transformations in the decrees and institutions of the Ministry of Public Education."

Thus, the further reorganization of the educational system was associated with the events of December 1825, the Decembrist uprising, which had a huge impact on all aspects of the social life of the Russian Empire. The new emperor Nicholas I saw one of the reasons for the revolutionary actions in the imperfection of the educational system.

Classical differentiation in the organization of the education system found its practical embodiment in Uvarov's policy on the educational department. He saw his main goal in attracting upper-class youth to state gymnasiums and universities, believing that the "noble youth" will take their rightful place in civil spheres, having received a solid education.

The desire to protect educational institutions that provide secondary and higher education from the penetration of representatives of non-nobility estates into them led to the need to erect legislative barriers for these estates.

The preventive measures of Nicholas I and his government against the penetration of persons of a non-free state and commoners into secondary and higher educational institutions basically achieved their goal. In 1833, approximately 78% of the total number of those admitted to the gymnasium were representatives of the upper classes - the nobility, officials and merchants of the first guild, 2% were clergymen, and the rest were from the lower and middle strata. Similar statistics persisted in the second half of the 40s. According to P.N. Milyukov, raznochintsy in gymnasiums and universities accounted for 20-30% at that time.

Chapter 2. Reform of education in 1863

1 Strengthening the scientific and educational potential of universities

Signs of a new political course began to appear with the accession to the throne of Alexander II. The society accepted the first measures taken by Alexander II with satisfaction. In the fall of 1855, the long-awaited resignations of a number of ministers of Nicholas I followed in society. The following were canceled: the ban on the departure of Russian citizens abroad, the forced surrender of the children of commoners, restrictions on the civil service of natives of the western provinces (primarily Poland). The works of previously disgraced writers were allowed for publication (among them N.V. Gogol and A.V. Koltsov). The dominant feeling in society was the feeling of liberation from the oppression of the Nikolaev regime and the expectation of a more liberal policy. The first steps of the government gave the personality of the new emperor the aura of a sincere supporter of liberal reforms.

Liberal trends that swept the government spheres were not slow to spread to the department of public education. The reform of the education system was put forward among the priority tasks, since by the middle of the 19th century. it became apparent that government education policy was in crisis. Its expression was manifested in the fact that the progressive development of the educational system has ceased, its lag, delay, inadequate response to the needs of society has been outlined. One of the features of the education crisis is the stagnation of the system as a consequence of the government's reactionary course, which found expression in the bureaucratization of education, artificial slowdown in the quantitative growth of its system (reduction in admission and graduation, freezing of the opening of new higher educational institutions). In addition, the stagnation of education was accompanied by the imposition of stagnant principles of the structure of academic life, the regulation of the educational process, the overorganized forms of education, the strengthening of extensive trends in the content of education - the so-called pseudo-encyclopedicity, etc.

In 1863, by a decree of June 18, a new university charter was approved, the most liberal of all the charters of the pre-revolutionary period.

The draft charter of universities, drawn up by the von Bradke commission, was published and sent to the trustees of educational districts, councils of universities, lyceums, prominent scientists, teachers, state and church leaders, as well as "various persons who were mainly involved in the matter of education and from whom useful considerations can be expected." ... At the direction of Golovnin, the text of the draft university charter, translated into French, German and English, along with the projects of primary and secondary schools, was sent for review to famous scientists and educators in Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland and England.

The charter of 1863 extended to Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kharkov, Kazan and Kiev universities. The main provisions of this document were obligatory for the University of Warsaw. Compared with the charter of 1835, the new law significantly increased the material resources of universities and expanded the independence of the professorial corporation. The charter recognized the priority of science for universities and created great potential for the internal development of universities. At the same time, it outlined measures to prevent student unrest and maintain the power of the bureaucracy over universities.

The structure of universities according to the new charter did not undergo cardinal changes; it only expanded due to the increase in the number of departments at faculties. Each had four faculties: physics and mathematics, history and philology, law and medicine. Only at St. Petersburg University, instead of the medical faculty, there was a faculty of oriental languages. However, the charter allowed for some differences between universities in the organization of their internal life, the structure of which was provided, in part, at the discretion of the university councils.

They began to teach highly specialized disciplines: church legislation, police law, etc. The Department of Political Economy and Statistics became a part of the Faculty of Law.

For example, instead of one department of mineralogy and geognosy, two independent departments appeared - mineralogy and geognosy. The departments of physics and physical geography, botany and zoology were divided. The teaching of such disciplines as technology, agriculture, forestry and architecture acquired a university, more theoretical character, due to their breeding in two departments - technical chemistry and agronomic chemistry. The innovations strengthened the profile of the faculties and made it possible to conduct educational and scientific work more productively, meeting modern needs.

Deep structural transformations took place at the Faculty of Medicine, where the number of departments increased from 10 to 17. Departments were introduced to develop the natural science training of future physicians: medicinal chemistry and physics, embryology, histology and comparative anatomy, and general pathology. The department of medical substance studies has acquired a modern sound as a result of the division into three: pharmacognosy and pharmacy, general therapy and medical diagnostics, theoretical and experimental pharmacology. The creation of new departments at this faculty made it possible to differentiate teaching and further develop specialization in the educational process.

For the first time, new departments were introduced at the Faculty of Oriental Languages of St. Petersburg University - the history of the East and Sanskrit literature, and the history of oriental literatures began to be taught.

The basis for further specialization of education was the provisions of the charter on granting the councils of universities the right to divide faculties into departments, and the subjects taught into compulsory and optional, main and secondary. The charter, in a sense, upset the balance between classical and natural science education in favor of the latter, for which Golovnin soon began to be sharply attacked by the security agencies, who saw in natural science the source of godlessness, materialism and nihilism.

The idea of including the course of theology in the list of optional disciplines was not reflected in the charter. On the contrary, the recommendation to make the reading of theological sciences more substantial in terms of content was legislatively enshrined, linking them with the foundations of presentation of other university disciplines. For this purpose, the former department of dogmatic and moral theology was reorganized into the department of general theology, and at the Faculty of History and Philology, as already noted above, a department of church history was created, at the legal department - church jurisprudence.

The approved states assumed a significant increase in the number of university professors and teachers. If, according to the staffing table in 1835, their total number in five universities was 265, then the new law increased it to 443, that is, by 67%.

In the new charter, much attention was paid to increasing the number of educational and auxiliary institutions that make up the educational and material base of universities: libraries, laboratories (in basic natural sciences), offices (physical, chemical, applied mechanics, mineralogical, zoological, etc.) clinics (therapeutic, surgical, obstetrics, women's and children's diseases), museums (physiological anatomy, antiquities and arts, collection of coins and medals), astronomical observatories, botanical gardens. This was supposed to contribute to improving the practical side of the educational process, mainly at the physics, mathematics and medical faculties, deepening scientific research, improving the quality of teaching and, in general, the level of training of young students.

Significant funds were allocated for the reform of universities. Before the reform, 988 357 rubles were allocated to five universities. 26 kopecks. Now, in the new states, this amount has increased to 1,762,383 rubles. 50 k., I.e. for 774,026 rubles. 24 kopecks. The average salary of professors and other teachers has approximately doubled. Ordinary professors (who previously received from 1263 to 1572 rubles) were assigned 3000 rubles each. per year, extraordinary - 2000 rubles, associate professors - 1200 rubles. The increase in salary allowed university teachers to focus on research and academic work and not look for additional earnings. In addition, they were all promoted. So, an ordinary professor was now assigned the rank of the V class (the former rector's), the extraordinary - VI, the associate professor - VII. Raising the social status of university professors was supposed to contribute to the growth of their authority, strengthen the self-esteem of scientists and draw attention to the profession of a scientist and educator of talented young people.

Special funds, generated mainly from the collection of fees for listening to lectures and private donations, were recognized as the inalienable property of universities (§ 109, 42, paragraph 9), their unspent remains could not be taken away to the treasury at the end of the year.

The resulting increase in the material content of universities as a whole was a favorable factor, but not enough to satisfy the necessary needs of these higher educational institutions. The amounts requested for the project were reduced by the Ministry of Finance by more than 100 thousand rubles. The increase in the salaries of professors and associate professors still did not lead to the achievement of the amounts that were determined by objective calculations carried out by the teachers themselves and reflected in their comments on the project. So, when describing the average level of the professor's living wage, the draft indicated the payment for an apartment of five rooms, the maintenance of a family and servants, the purchase of books, etc. It was noted that a salary of 5,000 rubles was preferable. to ensure a comfortable life. The amount of pensions for teachers who have completed their career has also remained unchanged.

Thus, the structure of universities under the new charter did not undergo any fundamental changes; it only expanded by increasing the number of departments at faculties.

The number of departments at the Faculty of Law almost doubled - from 7 to 13. New among them were: encyclopedias of law, history of Russian law, history of the most important foreign legislation, ancient and new, financial law.

The number of departments at the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics doubled due to the division of the former, which increased the differentiation of teaching.

2.2 Formation of the teaching staff of the university

Under the new charter, the position of associate professor was introduced at universities to replace an adjunct (assistant professor). It was possible to become an associate professor only with a master's or candidate's degree (by the way, it was impossible to become a professor without a doctoral degree). The charter provided associate professors with the right to conduct independent courses, attend meetings of the university council and the faculty meeting (after two years of service in this rank, he received the right to vote in it).

Universities had the right (§ 118) to elevate to the title of honorary members of their universities persons known for the patronage of the sciences or famous for their talents and merit. Honorary members of universities (after they were approved in this title by the trustees of educational districts) were issued appropriate diplomas. Honorary members, as a rule, provided material assistance to universities.

The formation of the teaching staff was now completely entrusted to the university council. The minister approved those elected by the council: rector, deans, vice-rector and professors. Associate professors, lecturers, honorary members, laboratory assistants, curators of offices and museums, assistant dissectors and vice-rector or inspector were approved by the trustee of the educational district. Many proposals of scientists to change the procedure for electing teachers were included in the charter. If, according to the charter of 1835, the nomination of candidates for vacancies in the departments was provided to the university council, which could offer any professor, regardless of his specialty, to run for the available vacancies, then under the new law this right was transferred to the faculty where there was a free seat. An applicant for the position of professor, assistant professor or assistant professor had to give two trial lectures in the presence of faculty members. The election procedure involved running for election first at the faculty meeting, and then a second time at the university council. The one who received the absolute majority of votes was considered to be elected. Repeated voting was allowed under the same conditions.

Requirements for re-voting were stricter for professors who had served 25 years. This required not a simple majority of votes, as it was before, but two-thirds of the total number of voters. Only then the election was recognized as valid, and the professor could continue to work at the department for another 5 years, followed by a new re-election. By such a measure, they hoped to give dynamics to the process of rejuvenating scientific and pedagogical personnel, to raise the level of teaching.

The charter made the path to the highest academic degree — doctor — easier: to obtain it, only a public defense of a dissertation was needed; the examination for a doctor's degree was canceled as a formality detrimental to the business. It made it easier to achieve the title of assistant professor. To do this, it was necessary for the candidate (formerly the master) to present and publicly defend the thesis pro venia legendi (to obtain the right to lecture). Privat-docents, not being full-time teachers, did not have a statutory salary and the new charter left the issues of material incentives for this category of teachers at the mercy of university councils, which introduced uncertainty in the position and prospects of privat-docents in universities.

Universities were managed by the Minister of Public Education and the trustee of the educational district, to whom the first entrusted supervision. The university council (§ 5) and faculty assemblies, consisting of all university professors, were recognized as part of this administration. The council elected the rector, deans, vice-rector (or inspector), professors and other teachers, university judges, and decided on the admission of assistant professors to lectures. The charter significantly expanded the scope of authority of the university council and determined the issues on which the decisions of the council were final: the distribution of subjects and the order of their teaching among faculties; the awarding of medals, awards for scientific achievements to students and the assignment of scholarships to them; approval in academic degrees and the title of a real student; selection of fellows to prepare at the university for a professorship; orders for the publication of scholarly essays; approval of decisions of the university court; consideration of the financial estimates of the university and approval of the annual estimates of special funds, income and expenses; distribution of the amounts assigned by the state to teaching aids by faculty.

With the consent of the minister, the council could carry out changes in the structure of faculties: divide them into departments, combine and divide departments, send candidates and masters abroad to prepare for a professorship, create scholarly societies, and determine the list of compulsory subjects for students. The charter delegated to the university the drafting of rules on the procedure for testing for academic degrees, internal regulations (rules for students) and instructions for the vice-rector (or inspector).

The role of faculties in the organization of the educational process increased. Faculty assemblies were entitled to elect a dean (for a period of three years) and teachers, approve educational programs, programs for competitions for occupying vacant departments, approve essays published by the university, and also take measures to strengthen the educational activities of students.

As can be seen from the content of the articles of the charter on the organization of university self-government, they reflect many of the ideas expressed by the overwhelming number of progressive-minded professors. The most radical proposals (Kavelin, Stasyulevich and others) remained unrealized. The solution of a number of important issues not only of educational and scientific, but also of an economic and administrative nature depended on the trustee and the minister.

An analysis of the articles of the charter, defining the competence of the trustees of educational districts, allows us to state that they retain significant power over universities. The terms of reference of the trustee included the approval of cases on the appointment and dismissal of teachers (with the exception of professors), staff of educational support institutions, university judges. He authorized instructions for the vice-rector or inspector, “measures and means leading to the strengthening of the university's activities”, as well as the rules drawn up by the council: on the procedure for collecting, distributing and using the amount collected for listening to lectures; on the admission of students to the university; on admitting unauthorized persons to listen to lectures; about the responsibilities of students and the order at the university; on penalties for violation of these obligations and order; about office work in the university court. The intentions of the liberal professors to limit the power of the trustee to only controlling functions in relation to universities, thus, were not fully realized. Many of the issues raised by university councils turned out to be dependent on the trustee authority.

Article (26), which defines the powers of the trustee, is very vague. According to it, the trustee is given the right to take all necessary measures so that the institutions, bodies and persons belonging to the university fulfill their duties; in emergency situations, he is authorized to act by any means available to him, even if they exceed his authority, with the obligation in such cases to report immediately to the minister; he permits, within the limits established by the charter, submissions in matters exceeding the authority of the university, or enters on such matters with considerations to the Minister of Public Education.

On the issues of university management, the ideas of public thought and their actual embodiment in the provisions of the charter turned out to be not entirely identical. This was recognized in the MNP itself. “It goes without saying that later university autonomy can be further developed; then it will probably be possible for some of the cases now approved by the trustee to be submitted to the final approval of the councils, ”noted an official article in the ministry's journal.

And yet, it should be clearly recognized that in matters of university management, from the point of view of the initiative given to the university collegiate bodies under the new charter, significant progress has been made in comparison with the legislation of the previous era. This was an undoubted victory for progressive social thought, defending the idea of autonomy and self-government as a reliable objective basis for the scientific and educational excellence of university education. Despite the fact that it was not possible to achieve full implementation of the plans for university independence, the degree of bureaucratic interference in the internal life of these higher educational institutions was significantly limited.

Thus, the formation of the teaching staff was now fully entrusted to the university council. The charter significantly expanded the scope of authority of the university council and determined the issues on which the decisions of the council were final: the distribution of subjects and the order of their teaching among faculties; the awarding of medals, awards for scientific achievements to students and the assignment of scholarships to them; approval in academic degrees and the title of a real student; selection of fellows to prepare at the university for a professorship; orders for the publication of scholarly essays; approval of decisions of the university court; consideration of the financial estimates of the university and approval of the annual estimates of special funds, income and expenses; distribution of the amounts assigned by the state to teaching aids by faculty.

3 Student Question of the Charter of 1863

An important part of the charter was the articles on the status of students. In it (chapter eight), the right of young men who have reached the age of 17 and have successfully graduated from the gymnasium was enshrined to enter the university without entrance exams. The student signed a commitment to comply with the rules; the form was canceled; outside the university buildings, the student was under the control of the police. On scholarships and grants, the treasury annually released significant sums: St. Petersburg University - 41,500 rubles, Moscow - 42,880, Kharkov - 28,250, Kazan - 32 LLC and Kiev University - 24 LLC rubles in silver. In addition, the St. Cyril and Methodius Fellowship was funded separately. For this purpose, each university was annually allocated 960 rubles in silver. Transferred tests were kept. Those who graduated from the university with good grades and submitted dissertations received a candidate's degree (X grade), and those who did not submit dissertations were awarded the title of a real student (XII grade). The category of state-owned students was eliminated and scholarships were introduced for those in need. For listening to lectures, a fee of 40 rubles was charged. in provincial universities and 50 silver rubles a year in the capital. Tuition fees were paid six months in advance. If a student could not pay for tuition within two months, then he was expelled from the university with the right to be reinstated after paying the set amount. Some categories of students were exempted by the council from paying money in full or in part, depending on income and other circumstances. A significant proportion of poor but well-performing students were exempted from tuition fees. The charter did not provide for any class restrictions for applicants. The term of study at the medical faculty of the university was 5 years, and for the rest - 4 years. The academic year lasted from August 15 to July 1.

The new charter assigned educational functions to university collegia, including in matters of student supervision. Now, not a civilian or military official appointed by the trustee, was, as before, the arbiter of the destinies of student youth, but vice-rectors - professors or inspectors with a university education, appointed by the council and acting according to instructions drawn up by it (chapter six). The task of the vice-rector (inspector) was only to ensure that students followed the rules of conduct established by the council itself. In case of their violation, the degree of responsibility was established by the newly revived (since the time of the charter of 1804) university court, whose verdicts on the most significant offenses were approved by the council, and on less significant ones - by the board. The new order established strict control and responsibility of the councils and the university court in relation to students.

Formally, the charter of 1863 did not prohibit the creation of student organizations, however, in a confidential circular from Minister Golovnin, sent to the trustees of educational districts immediately after the king's approval of the university bill, the necessary requirements were expressed for the drafting of rules for students by the councils. Among them, among the mandatory was the ban on the creation of student organizations, holding meetings, etc.

The charter did not regulate the forms of organization of the educational process and control over the studies of students (timing and frequency of exams). All this was transferred to the jurisdiction of the university collegiums, but was approved by the trustee of the educational district.

The charter passed over in silence the "women's question". Subsequent orders of the Ministry of Public Education and the rules drawn up by universities on their basis on admitting unauthorized persons to listen to lectures did not grant such a right to women.

Thus, the charter of 1863 restored university autonomy, helped to strengthen the position of universities as centers of science and education, and significantly raised the social status of the teaching corps. At the same time, the influence of power structures on university life remained quite strong, since the rights of trustees were extremely vaguely defined. The student corporation did not receive legal registration, which did not meet student interests and created a pretext for new student speeches.

It can be considered that the charter of 1863 was a temporary compromise between the liberals and the government bureaucracy, which in those socio-economic and political conditions could not afford to sacrifice principles and retained the prospect of revenge on this important issue.

A major shortcoming of the 1863 charter was the complete denial of student corporations, which was insistently emphasized in ministerial regulations and was enforced with extreme rigor in all subsequent years. As early as July 20, 1863, a circular proposal from the Minister of Public Education to the trustees of educational districts followed, in which it was strongly indicated that students, of course, should be considered individual visitors to the university. Not only gatherings and filing addresses to the authorities were strictly prohibited, but also theatrical performances, charity concerts, student libraries, mutual aid funds and even ... smoking rooms, where students sometimes gathered and various leaflets were hung out. The ministerial document urged university councils to make sure that they did not repeat student riots when drafting university rules. “... It is highly desirable to take advantage of this opportunity,” the circular noted, “in order to remove from the universities the very reasons for unfortunate events, such as those that forced the termination of lectures and the closure of entire faculties, so that nothing would disturb the usual calm course of the scientific activities of universities in the future. ".

A special section of the circular prescribed the recommended requirements to be taken into account when drafting the rules on the admission of students and listeners: that these rules contain a ban on women attending university lectures, so that the right of free listeners to attend classes could be limited by the need to obtain the consent of the professor, so that the rules for moving from one university to another become stricter (now such an opportunity was provided only to those who could present an approving review from the previous place of study and thus protect the educational institution from unwanted elements).

By the beginning of the new 1864/65 academic year, practically all university councils, on the basis of a ministerial circular, had drawn up intra-university rules, which were approved by the trustees of the educational districts. In essence, this was a direct violation of the just adopted charter, according to which the professorial board was supposed to independently develop documents for internal use, without pressure and instructions from the ministry. The Minister's circular not only blocked the path to student autonomy, but also laid the foundation for blocking the autonomous rights of university councils.

The planned reform of universities, in its practical implementation, faced a number of difficulties and contradictions, caused in a number of cases by the lack of necessary provisions in the charter or the uncertainty of their content. This primarily concerned the preparation of a new change of teaching staff for universities. Although paragraph 42 declared possible ways of solving this issue (leaving graduates at universities, sending them abroad), the very mechanism for implementing these plans was not spelled out. In addition, material support for "postgraduate" education was not provided for by regular means. Providing the necessary staff of the departments according to the new charter turned out to be not an easy task. The shortage of highly qualified personnel has been acutely felt for many years.

The lack of a consistent personnel policy was negatively reflected in the late 50s. on the composition of university departments. Many of them were left blank. Previous possibilities were exhausted. Under Nicholas I in 1838 the Professorial Institute in Dorpat was closed, and in 1858 the Main Pedagogical Institute. The institute of associate professors was poorly solving this problem, so the universities were forced to send individual candidates abroad, where they were preparing for a professorship in the best Western European universities. But since 1848, this possibility has been banned. They tried to get out of the difficult situation by inviting teachers of other disciplines, as well as low-skilled specialists, recent students, and gymnasium teachers, which negatively affected the level of training of university graduates.

Thus, in the discussion of the issues of the university structure, one of the main places was occupied by the student question, which was sharpened by the so-called student "riots". This problem forced to look for ways to strengthen the educational and scientific activity of students in order to exclude the possibility of participation of students in the social and political life of the country. The tense situation in the universities gave rise to various proposals in public thought for the further improvement of the educational process aimed at its democratization. At the same time, a significant number of opinions were against the idea of creating a student corporation with certain rights and responsibilities.

public education reform nikolay

Chapter 3. Comparative analysis of the education system before the reform and after the reform of 1863

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, the Charter was introduced, which destroyed the university autonomy. According to the Charter of July 26 (August 7), 1835, the management of universities passed to the trustees of educational districts subordinated to the Ministry of Public Education. Rectors began to be approved by the emperor, and professors - by the trustee. The Council of Professors lost independence in educational and scientific affairs.

Usually a new stage in the development of Russian universities is associated with the accession to the throne of Alexander II. However, facts indicate that already in the last year of the reign of Nicholas I, certain changes began in attitudes towards education in general, and universities in particular. The Committee for the Transformation of Educational Institutions was created under the leadership of D. Bludov. In 1854, a new minister of public education, S. S. Norov (brother of the Decembrist), was appointed, who together with his unofficial adviser A. V. Nikitenko (professor of the SPU and a liberal censor) presented the tsar with a report on the need to improve the situation in universities. If in 1854 Nicholas I did not allow to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Kazan University, then in 1855 the 100th anniversary of the MU was celebrated solemnly, and the tsar sent the University a Certificate of Appreciation on this occasion. In addition, in 1854, after a long hiatus, it was allowed to increase admission in some universities, but only in medical faculties.

With the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, the process of change accelerated, the most shy prohibitions of previous years were gradually canceled. Already in 1855, restrictions on the admission of students were lifted, from 1856 again

graduates were sent to foreign universities to prepare for a professorship, the rights of universities to elect rectors and deans were restored, from 1859 it was allowed to subscribe books from abroad without censorship, from 1860 the former departments of philosophy, state law were revived and new ones were opened in accordance with with the requirements of the time. In a short time, there was a rapid growth in the number of university students, an average of 2 times over 8 years. There was a rapid change in the teaching staff, the professorship was renewed by almost 50% in 1855-1862, especially in law faculties.

Many young professors appeared in the departments, including those who were considered politically unreliable, subjected to exile, etc. Thus, N.I. Kostomarov was elected to the department of Russian history at St. Petersburg University, who had just returned from exile and replaced the conservative Ustryalov. The Department of the History of Russian Literature was headed by 27-year-old A.N. Pypin (N.G. Chernyshevsky's cousin), K. Kavelin, V.D. Spasovich, etc. During these years, the old rivalry between Moscow and St. Petersburg universities continued, but if in previous years Moscow University held the palm, now it was transferred to St. Petersburg University.

In fact, for the first time in the history of Russia, the knowledge of scientists was in demand by the government when developing a new political course. Peasant reform aroused particular attention in universities; the vast majority of teachers and students opposed serfdom.

There was a radical change in the heads of universities, the military trustees were replaced by civilian officials, and an outstanding surgeon, Professor N.I. Pirogov (the first case in the history of Russian universities). Young talented scientists appeared as rectors: Kiev University was headed by 34-year-old professor Bunge N. (future Minister of Finance of Russia), Kazansky - by 32-year-old prof. chemistry A.M. Butlerov. The decisive influence in the SPU was enjoyed by prof. Kavelin K., elected Dean of the Faculty of Law. Kiev and Kharkov universities were freed from the tutelage of governor-generals.

A new phenomenon in the life of the university was the appearance of a larger number of volunteers and even completely outsiders in lectures, finally, in the winter semester of 1860, the first woman appeared in the auditorium of the law faculty, and by the end of the second semester, women were at lectures in all faculties, in some classrooms there were as many of them as there were students. Kavelin achieved the decision of the university council to allow women to attend lectures, then other universities, except for Moscow, where most of the professors spoke out against it.

During those held in Russia in the 60s. transformations, the problems of the development of universities occupied not the last place. The reforms of Alexander II required a sharp increase in the number of educated people, serious changes in the sphere of public education. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the question arose about significant changes in universities, about the development of a new university charter. Both in the official documents of the government and in the speeches of professors in the press, the main problems that needed to be solved were noted. They boiled down to expanding university autonomy, freedom of teaching, increasing the rights of the professorial college, improving the material base, increasing the salaries of teachers, etc. Scrapbook for a few noted the main shortcomings of Russian universities by the beginning of the 60s: 1. Lack of good professors, hence many departments are not replaced or are random people; 2. The indifference of the learned estates to the interests of their universities and science in general is the result of the fact that professors are removed from the management of universities and are burdened with material concerns; 3. Excessive plurality of subjects studied by students, which affected the depth of knowledge and led to condescension on tests; 4. The scarcity of university teaching aids, which did not allow them to keep up with Western European ones.

The final draft of the charter was prepared by the academic committee of the Main Board of the MNP schools with the involvement of a wide range of specialists. From June 27 to October 31, 1862, 18 meetings of the committee took place, which discussed all the proposals and developed a text, which was considered at the beginning of 1863 in a special meeting of dignitaries and ministers. After that, the project passed the examination at the Ministry of Justice and was approved by the general meeting of the State Council. On June 18, 1863, the emperor in Tsarskoe Selo approved the university charter, which marked the beginning of a new stage in the history of Russian universities.

The adopted charter of 1863 did not take into account many of the proposals that came during the discussion, it was largely of a compromise nature, but two main ideas were carried out quite consistently: the concentration of science issues in universities (public opinion realized that the advantage of Western Europe, above all , in the development of science, and the source and support of science is universities) and the elimination of regulation, especially in moral issues, which were introduced by the charter of 1835. The official note of the Ministry of Public Education, sent to universities in connection with the approval of the charter of 1863, emphasized: Science is read in universities for science, and the very property of different branches of human knowledge serves as the basis for the division of universities into faculties. University teaching can be of true benefit to those who seek only science in the temple of science, i.e. knowledge, and do not go there driven by material, speculative motives. Therefore, all artificial baits are harmful for the university, because they fill the audience with its unusual listeners, and from this it follows that universities should stand outside any category of ranks. .

The charter of 1863 consisted of 12 chapters, which detailed the rights of universities in general, faculties, teaching and student corporations. Universities received a fairly wide autonomy, the rights of trustees were curtailed, they were not supposed to interfere in the daily life of universities. But the rights of the Council, the rector, elected by the Council for 4 years from university professors and approved by the emperor, faculty meetings were expanded, the university court was restored, which was elected by the Council of 3 professors and 3 candidates, with 1 prof. and 1 candidate must have been from the Faculty of Law. Universities have received a very important right to approve academic degrees. The number of departments and staff units at 4 faculties has significantly expanded, at the historical and philological department there are 11 departments with 12 professors and 7 associate professors, at the physics and mathematics department - 12 departments with 16 professors and 3 associate professors, at the legal department - 13 departments with 13 professors and 6 associate professors , in medicine - 17 departments with 16 professors and 17 associate professors, at the Faculty of Oriental Languages (only at St. Petersburg University, where there was no medical faculty) - 9 departments, 9 professors, 8 associate professors, 4 lecturers. In addition, the universities had a department of theology and 4 lecturers each for teaching Italian, French, German and English.

To monitor the students, the Council elected from among its members a vice-rector or an inspector from among officials, to assist them were appointed sub-inspectors and a secretary for student affairs. They were admitted to the university from the age of 17, without entrance exams for those who successfully graduated from the gymnasium. The student signed on to comply with the university rules, the wearing of the uniform was canceled, outside the walls of the university, the student became subject to the police. The creation of student organizations was not allowed. The transition of a student from one course to another became possible only through tests, graduating from the university with good grades and submitting dissertations received a candidate's degree, and those who graduated satisfactorily and did not submit a dissertation were awarded the title of a real student. The category of state-owned students was eliminated and scholarships were introduced for those in need, lectures were charged by the universities (on average 40-50 rubles per year).

According to the new charter, the synchronization of academic degrees and positions was clearly carried out: No one can be an ordinary or extraordinary professor without a doctorate in the category of sciences corresponding to his department. To obtain the title of associate professor, one must have at least a master's degree; as private lecturers can be candidates who have submitted dissertations in the department of the faculty in which they intend to teach ... However, this correspondence was not implemented in practice.

According to the new charter, universities received more independence in resolving personnel issues, because now the Council and faculty meetings were choosing professors, sending the best graduates abroad to prepare for a professorship, for the same purpose, an assistant professor was introduced in almost all departments.

The salary of an ordinary professor was increased to 3 thousand rubles. a year, a full-time assistant professor - up to 1.5 thousand. All universities entered under the special patronage of the emperor and were called imperial, they were exempted from many duties and taxes, had their own seal, could acquire real estate, open printing houses and bookstores.

Giving a general assessment of the charter of 1863, it should be noted that, firstly, it restored university autonomy, contributed to a certain progress of universities as centers of science and education; secondly, the rights of the professors' collegium were expanded, the financial situation of professors improved, which contributed to the attraction of talented youth to their ranks; thirdly, a fairly harmonious system of training university personnel was taking shape; fourthly, universities have now received the right to approve their own degrees. At the same time, government oversight of universities remained largely unchanged, as the rights of trustees were extremely vague. The student body remained in the same position, having not received the desired rights. Therefore, student riots did not stop. So it can be considered that the charter of 1863 was a compromise between the liberal trends of the 60s, the former university order and the aspirations of bureaucratic Petersburg circles. Hence the dissatisfaction of all and the desire to amend the charter. Liberal authors, welcoming the new charter, noted its half-heartedness, conservatives criticized it for concessions to the public, revolutionary democratic leaders and their press organs took the new charter sharply negatively. Although the government camp welcomed the charter, attacks on university rights in disguised form soon began: the Ministry of Public Education sent circulars to universities proposing the development and implementation of internal regulations that further curtailed student rights and violated the 1863 Charter.

The decade after the adoption of the charter is regarded by many researchers and contemporaries as one of the most productive in the history of Russian universities. St. Petersburg University developed especially successfully, where the largest Russian scientists: mathematicians, chemists, lawyers, philologists, were concentrated. University professors became the basis of the teaching corps of the higher women's courses (bestuzhev's), which opened in 1878, which worked according to the university program.

The increase in the scientific potential of universities has manifested itself in the creation of more schools that have received international recognition. Thus, a brilliant mathematical school emerged at St. Petersburg University (Academician P. Chebyshev and his students A. Markov, A. Lyapunov, etc.), the first school of physiologists in Russia headed by I.M.Sechenov, Mendeleev Chemical School ( A. Butlerov, N. Menshutkin), at Moscow University created the school of physics A.G. Stoletov, who headed the corresponding department for 30 years and handed it over to another prominent scientist P.N. Lebedev. Chemistry at MU was in the pen until V.V. Markovnikov in the 70s, who founded his own school. The same years were marked by the flourishing of science in the young Odessa University, where a large group of prominent scientists worked at the same time: I.I. Mechnikov, V.O. Kovalevsky, N.A. Umov, N.I. Andrusov, L.S. Tsenkovsky, I.V. Yaglich and others.

It was in the 60-70s. a system of history education was formed in Russian universities. In contrast to Western Europe, where historical sciences were usually part of the faculty of philosophy, we established faculties of history and philology, and history education was obtained in close connection with philology, the same subjects were listened to in 1-2 courses, specialization began in 3rd year. A stable nomenclature of historical departments was formed, reflected in the Charter of 1863. A tradition of Russian universities was formed - professors read their own general courses, which forced students to think, accustomed to independent analysis. Special courses were usually taught by private lecturers and associate professors, who thus presented the results of their future dissertations to the audience.

The University Charter of 1863 combined the German principle of a self-governing professorial corporation, the French principle of compulsory curriculum and transition examinations, and control over the activities of educational institutions, traditional for the Russian autocracy (Ministry of Public Education, educational districts, inspections, commissions, etc.). The adopted Charter did not take into account many proposals, it was of a compromise nature, but some fundamentally important ideas were carried out quite consistently. First, universities became centers of science: the effectiveness of combining educational and scientific work was proved by Western European experience. Secondly, the excessive regulation of university life was eliminated, which was a serious obstacle to the development of new directions in science and education. Universities received a fairly wide autonomy, the trustees of the educational district were not supposed to interfere in the daily life of educational institutions functioning on the basis of the Charter of 1863, the University Council (which included all professors) and meetings of faculties were given broad powers in solving scientific, educational and many administrative matters. ... They had the final say when approving academic titles and awards for scientific activity, publishing scientific papers, approving curricula, etc.

Thus, the Charter of 1863 granted universities a fairly broad autonomy.

Conclusion

In the history of Russian public education, the end of the 17th, the beginning of the 18th century. were marked by the separation of secular education from the spiritual. The higher authorities strove for a broad staging of public education and the search for new means to solve the central issue of the system of general and non-class education.

However, the establishment of universities did not take place due to the lack of the required number of professors, lack of material resources. This did not allow completing the creation of the "system" of education, the approval of general, all-class education as a necessary basis for higher professional education.

The circumstances of the first years of the reign of Emperor Alexander I linked the educational reform with the administrative one. Among the first eight ministries, the Ministry of Public Education was established.

The new charter, developed in 1804, laid the principle of continuity at the basis of the Russian education system. It was an integral reform that united all categories of general education schools, from university to parish schools, into one system. Access to higher levels depended only on the ability of the students; schools were free, and scholarships were provided for disadvantaged students. The most prepared high school graduates continued their education at universities and other higher educational institutions of the Russian Empire.

Initially, gymnasium education was overloaded with subjects studied. On this basis, Uvarov excluded university courses from the curriculum of the gymnasium, and introduced subjects that "serve as the first foundation of true enlightenment" in the plan included: the law of God, domestic and classical languages, history, geography, mathematics, grammar, logic, rhetoric, domestic and foreign literature.

That is, the plans of the gymnasium and the university were quite sharply differentiated. The gymnasium was freed from the subjects of "real education" and turned into a class, preparatory to the university or directly to the bureaucratic service, an educational institution with a program.

The new Charter of 1835 put forward a goal for the gymnasiums, on the one hand, to prepare for listening to university lectures, on the other, "to provide ways of a decent upbringing." At the head of the gymnasium was still the director, who was assisted by an inspector, elected from among the senior teachers, to supervise the order in the classrooms and manage the housekeeping in the boarding schools. The title of honorary trustee was also established, for general supervision over the gymnasium and boarding school with the director.

According to the charter of 1835, the management of each of the universities was entrusted to the special leadership of the trustee of the educational district - a government official appointed by the emperor. The new centralized system for managing educational districts has led to the restriction of university autonomy and academic freedoms. As a result, the role of the trustee and his office in the management of the university has increased significantly.

The preventive measures of Nicholas I and his government against the penetration of persons of a non-free state and commoners into secondary and higher educational institutions basically achieved their goal. In 1833, approximately 78% of the total number of those admitted to the gymnasium were representatives of the upper classes - the nobility, officials and merchants of the first guild, 2% were clergymen, and the rest were from the lower and middle strata. Similar statistics persisted in the second half of the 40s. According to P.N. Milyukov, raznochintsy in gymnasiums and universities accounted for 20-30% at that time.

With the adoption of the Charter of 1863, the structure of universities did not undergo any fundamental changes; it only expanded due to the increase in the number of departments in faculties.

The number of departments at the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics doubled due to the division of the former, which increased the differentiation of teaching.

The formation of the teaching staff was now completely entrusted to the university council. The charter significantly expanded the scope of authority of the university council and determined the issues on which the decisions of the council were final: the distribution of subjects and the order of their teaching among faculties; the awarding of medals, awards for scientific achievements to students and the assignment of scholarships to them; approval in academic degrees and the title of a real student; selection of fellows to prepare at the university for a professorship; orders for the publication of scholarly essays; approval of decisions of the university court; consideration of the financial estimates of the university and approval of the annual estimates of special funds, income and expenses; distribution of the amounts assigned by the state to teaching aids by faculty.

The charter of 1863 fixed a number of privileges granted to universities: they were exempted from many taxes, could acquire real estate, open printing houses, bookstores.

The University Charter of 1863 combined the German principle of a self-governing professorial corporation, the French principle of compulsory curriculum and transition examinations, and control over the activities of educational institutions, traditional for the Russian autocracy (Ministry of Public Education, educational districts, inspections, commissions, etc.). The adopted Charter did not take into account many proposals, it was of a compromise nature, but some fundamentally important ideas were carried out quite consistently. First, universities became centers of science: the effectiveness of combining educational and scientific work was proved by Western European experience. Secondly, the excessive regulation of university life was eliminated, which was a serious obstacle to the development of new directions in science and education. Universities received wide enough autonomy, the trustees of the educational district were not supposed to interfere in the daily life of educational institutions operating on the basis of the Charter of 1863.The University Council (which included all professors) and faculty meetings were given broad powers in solving scientific, educational and many administrative matters. ... They had the final say when approving academic titles and awards for scientific activity, publishing scientific papers, approving curricula, etc.

List of used literature

1.Avrus A.I. History of Russian Universities: Essays. - M .: Mosk. societies. scientific. fund, 2001 .-- 86 p.

.A.V. Golovnin Memories of A.V. Golovnina // Questions of history. 1996. No 3, 1997.

.Zemlyanaya T. B., Pavlycheva O. N. Development of higher education in the 19th century - access mode # "justify">. Petrov F.A. Russian universities in the first half of the 19th century. Formation of the university education system. M., 2001.

.Soloviev I.M. The fate of Russian universities // I.M.Soloviev. Russian universities in their charters and memoirs of contemporaries. - # "justify"> access mode. Knyazev E.A. Autonomy and authoritarianism (Historical review of reforms in domestic higher education). M., 1991.

.Pirogov N.I. University question / Pirogov NI Selected pedagogical works. M .: - 1955. # "justify">. Tomsinov V.A. University reform of 1863. Moscow: 1972

.Andreev A.Yu. On the beginning of university education in St. Petersburg // Domestic history. 1998, no. 5.

.Borozdin I.N. Universities of Russia in the first half of the 19th century // History of Russia in the 19th century. T. 2.SPb, 1907.

.Vernadsky V.I. On the foundations of the university reform. M., 1901.

.Wessel N.Kh. Essays on general education and the system of public education in Russia. M., 1959.

.Georgievsky G.I. On the reform of universities in Russia. SPb, 1909.

.A.V. Golovnin Notes for the few // Questions of history. - access mode # "justify">. Zakharova L.G. "Alexander II and the abolition of serfdom in Russia." access mode # "justify">. Zmeev V.A. Evolution of the higher school of the Russian Empire. M., 1998.

.Kapnist P. University question. SPb, 1904.

.Ivanov A.E. Academic degrees in the Russian Empire of the 18th century. - 1917 M., 1994.

.Kamchatnov G.A. Domestic historiography of government policy on the university issue in the era of great reforms. # "justify">. Koltsov N.K. To the university question. M., 1910.

.Ladyzhets N.S. University education: ideals, goals, value orientations. Izhevsk, 1992.

.B.V. Levshin Academic University in St. Petersburg (Historical background) // Domestic history. 1998, no. 5.

.Lyakhovich E.S., Revushkin A.S. Universities in the history and culture of pre-revolutionary Russia. Tomsk, 1998.

.Nikitenko A.V. Diary in three volumes. Volume 1.1826-1857. -access mode # "justify">. Panteleev L.F. Memories. M., 1958. - access mode # "justify">. Pirogov N.I. A look at the general charter of our universities // Pirogov NI Soch. T. 2.window.edu.ru/library

.Pirogov N.I. University question / Pirogov NI Selected pedagogical works. M .: - 1955. # "justify">. Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. T. XXVII. No. 16421. Access mode # "justify">. Razumovsky V.I. Towards the history of universities and medical faculties. SPb, 1910. - access mode # "justify">. Russian universities in the 18th-20th centuries. Issue 3-5. Voronezh, 1997

.Russian Universities of the 18th-20th Centuries in the System of Historical Science and Historical Education. Issue 2. Voronezh, 1994.

.Sechenov I.M. Autobiographical notes. M., 1952. - access mode # "justify">. Soloviev I.M. Russian universities in their charters and memoirs of contemporaries. Issue 1. Universities before the sixties. SPb, 1914.

.E. L. Staferova A.V. Golovin and liberal reforms in education (first half of 1860). M., 2007.

.University for Russia. A look at the history of culture in the 18th century. M., 1997. - Access mode # "justify">. Uvarov P.Yu. Characteristic features of university culture // From the history of European universities in the XIII-XV centuries. Voronezh, 1984.

.Universities of Russia: problems of autonomy and regional self-government. Rostov n / a, 1995.

.Ushakin S.A. Universities and government // Social sciences and modernity. 1999, No. 2.-С.23-25

.Chernozub S.P. Reform of higher education: heritage and dictate of traditions // Social sciences and modernity. 1998, no. 2.

.Eimontova R.G. Russian universities are on the verge of two eras: from serf Russia to capitalist Russia. M., 1985.book-forum.iuoop7

.Eimontova R.G. Russian universities on the path of reform. - Access mode # "justify">. Charter 1863 - access mode # "justify">. Frish S.E. Through the prism of time. M., 1992.

Development of science during the reign of Nicholas 1. Development of secondary and higher education in Russia at the end of the 18th – first half of the 19th century. Text of the scientific work on "Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I"

annotation scientific article on history and archeology, the author of the scientific work - Elena Aleksandrovna Kalinina

Related Topics scientific works on history and archeology, the author of the scientific work is Elena Aleksandrovna Kalinina

The text of the scientific work on the topic "Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I"

The reign and uprising of the Decembrists

Domestic policy

Foreign policy

Wars and uprisings

Personal life

Death

Similar works to - Development of secondary and higher education in Russia at the end of the XVIII-first half of the XIX century

annotation scientific article on history and archeology, the author of the scientific work - Elena Aleksandrovna Kalinina

Related Topics scientific works on history and archeology, the author of the scientific work is Elena Aleksandrovna Kalinina

The text of the scientific work on the topic "Reform of secondary and primary education in Russia under Nicholas I"

The reign and uprising of the Decembrists

Domestic policy

Foreign policy

Wars and uprisings

Personal life

Death

Similar works to - Development of secondary and higher education in Russia at the end of the XVIII-first half of the XIX century

Read also