Janusz Smykowski,

Strategic objectives of secondary education reforms in Russia in the light of the statutes of 1871 and 1872

After the Crimean War, the issue of comprehensive reforms of fundamental areas of national and social life started to be considered as a national problem of utmost importance by the Russian ruling class. The war revealed tsarist Russia’s backwardness regarding not only purely military but also social and economic aspects. If such a state of affairs continued for a long time, this would threaten Russia with a loss of her political significance in the international arena, a perspective unacceptable to the Russian political elite. Accordingly, as soon as the war ended, reforms were initiated, planned on a large scale, the most important of which turned out to be the abolition of serfdom.[1] As a result of these reforms, Russia changed from a feudal state into one where remnants of the old system did continue to play an important part, but social and economic processes could be introduced to lead to great transformations in many areas over a long term.

That state, reformed by Tsar Alexander II, had to undertake activity in areas new to it. Typically for a European state of the 19th century, there was an increase in the number of the state’s functions and tasks, one of them being education. Even though the Ministry of Education had been functioning in Russia from as early as 1802, the reforms implemented made it necessary to expand rapidly the network of schools, especially elementary but also secondary ones. Such an expansion was necessary because of the need to modernize a large state whose economic development was delayed. The new fields of economic and social life emerging at the time required the preparation of personnel and employees of varied authority levels. These expectations could not be met by those who served as the main pillar and support of the tsar’s autocracy – dvorianstvo, the only developed class in Russia – because there were too few of them relative to what was needed. It was necessary, then, to give authority to representatives of the classes or social groups which, because of their social and cultural deprivation, did not gain trust of the Russian political elite.[2] Providing the masses, so far deprived of access to education, with intellectual tools allowing them to use the achievements of symbolic culture (including social thought and ideology) was a serious political problem for the Russian ruling class.[3]

From the end of the 1850s and the beginning of the 1860s, the Ministry of Education and circles of Russian educationalists held discussions about the shape of the future school system, including secondary education. The discussions bore fruit in the form of several bills concerning secondary education, which was then commonly regarded as the essential core of the educational system.[4] It was secondary education that was supposed to give indispensable knowledge and skills, not only as a ticket to higher education (primarily universities) but also as a source of qualified middle-rank employees in the state administration, business administration, emerging industry and other fields.

As a result of the discussions and work at the Ministry of Education, headed then by Aleksandr Golovnin, a gymnasium statute was passed in 1864, introducing two types of gymnasiums: “classical” ones, with classical languages, Latin and Greek, occupying a dominant role, and “real” gymnasiums, emphasizing sciences. The main purpose of the statute was to provide students with general knowledge at the level allowing them to continue studying at Russian universities.[5] In this sense, studying in a gymnasium was to be a preparatory course for university education. The two types of gymnasiums, though formally of equal status, were actually divided into “better” ones, classical gymnasiums, because they ensured a ticket for a university, and “worse” ones, real gymnasiums, because they were earmarked for future traders, merchants, craftsmen, or, more broadly, service employees.[6] The aim of gymnasium education was, among others, to equip the student with general secondary school knowledge. The “classicists” and “realists” held a dispute, which could not be resolved, about what “general education” should look like.[7] They did not seriously take into consideration the possibility of combining two types of knowledge which could now be assigned to two blocks: sciences and humanities. It was only possible to have either classical or real gymnasiums.

In the 1860s, also after Golovnin’s statute was published, Russian educationalists held discussions about advantages and disadvantages of both types of gymnasiums. The classicists accused the realists that the profile advocated by the latter would cause students to be overloaded with information from many fields which would not be set in the world of human thoughts and ideas, thus producing merely “superficially” educated persons. The realists, on the other hand, claimed that classical education, assigning central importance to “dead” languages – Latin and Greek, would make the curricula concentrate excessively on the ancient past, severing the student’s contact with the present.[8]

The usefulness of both types of gymnasiums for the Russian school education was perceived also in a wider context, wondering how useful is each of the educational profiles – the classical and the real one – for future needs of the country. Supporters of each direction of gymnasium education invoked important arguments. The realists pointed out Russia’s needs with respect to industrialization and modernization, which in their opinion eliminated classical education as not very useful and not giving students knowledge necessary for the emerging fields of social and economic life, not even information which would allow the students to better function and find themselves in the reality, changing increasingly faster. The classicists, on the other hand, supported their argumentation by invoking the past and present experience of European countries with secondary education. Even though this education was still dominated by classical languages, this had not prevented Western Europe from achieving economic, and, consequently, political power. Statistical data were also quoted to show that graduates of classical gymnasiums were able not only to meet the rigorous requirements of university education but also to cope better in other types of higher schools. The data showed, too, that intellectual skills based on the knowledge of the dead languages caused students to be better equipped to continue studying in various types of higher schools.[9]

Soon after the publication of the gymnasium statute, Tsar Alexander II was subject to an assassination attempt by Karakozov in 1866. After this event, an investigation commission headed by General Mikhail Muravyov, known as Wieszatiel [“Hangman”], was set up to find out the circumstances and reasons of the attempted assassination. One of the major conclusions of that commission was to demonstrate disadvantages of the prevailing educational system in gymnasiums, which failed to provide youth with “thorough” knowledge and “hard” facts. As a result, the education was supposed to be “superficial”, not set in the world of human thoughts and ideas.[10] Thus, real gymnasiums were accused to be indirectly responsible for the event.

The Russian government circles feared the influence of educational contents connected with science on the youth from unprivileged social classes. According to the ministry, sciences, linked to contemporary ideas, could direct students’ attention to their own social position and thus contribute to increased social dissatisfaction in the country in the future.[11]

Because the statute of 1864 did not determine the fate of further education, leaving to the future the decision about the usefulness of both types of gymnasiums for the country’s future, after the findings of the investigation commission, work was initiated with the aim to ultimately solve the dilemma. Work on the new statute was conducted by Count Dmitry Tolstoi, appointed Minister of Education by the Tsar after Minister Golovnin was dismissed.[12]

Tolstoi worked for several years, aiming to arrive at a new gymnasium statute. As for the ultimate organization of these schools, he disagreed with his predecessor, Golovnin, with respect to three issues. First, the possibility of selecting the type of gymnasium by landed gentry (ziemstvo) and the question whether there were to be two types of gymnasiums or just one. Second, the issue of allowing the staff meeting at schools to prepare syllabi or having the Ministry of Education define strictly framework syllabi. Third, the question whether gymnasiums should be regarded as facilities where students are not only taught but also brought up, and whether the number of boarding schools should be accordingly increased.[13]

The new minister was in favour of leaving the rank of gymnasiums assigned only to schools with a classical curriculum. This was because, in his opinion, a gymnasium prepared youth intellectually to the extent sufficient to study at a university. He also advocated strict control of syllabi by the Ministry of Education as a necessary condition to ensure the uniformity of the syllabi and, consequently, the uniformity of requirements imposed on prospective graduates at the end of the course. At the same time, Count Tolstoi strongly supported the gymnasium as an educational facility responsible not only for teaching the students but also for their upbringing. On the other hand, the new bill assumed, similarly to the earlier statute, that the gymnasium was to be generally accessible to all social classes.[14] Because the ministry were aware of the educational gulf separating children belonging to dvorianstvo from children from the remaining social classes at the time, they envisaged a preparatory class (пригoтовительный класс) attached to gymnasiums. It was necessary to set up such a class because of the decision that a child could enter a gymnasium on condition that he or she passed the entrance examinations.[15] Another reason for having such a class was the importance of languages in the overall curriculum. It was necessary therefore to teach the student the basic grammatical rules of the state’s official language before embarking on the explanation of such rules in foreign languages. As compared to the gymnasium curriculum of 1864 the number of classes of the main subjects – classical languages and mathematics – was to increase, while the number of subjects regarded as secondary (modern languages, history, religion, geography, draughtsmanship and drawing) was to decrease. At the same time, in the vicinity of gymnasiums, lodgings were to be provided for students having no relatives in the cities or towns where the schools were located. As for real gymnasiums, the ministry’s bill envisaged that they would be changed into “real schools” (реальныя училища), which were to be subject to a separate statute.[16]

The work on the statute on real schools, according to the minister’s guidelines, proceeded in the following directions. First, within such schools a number of optional courses were to be introduced, adjusted to the needs of particular regions where the schools were located. Second, the period of studying was extended to 7 years and was to cover general subjects (mathematics, Russian, modern languages) and specialist ones. Third, it was expected that education in those schools would be a continuation of learning in poviat (district) schools, and, at the same time, the preparation of students to specialist higher schools, excluding universities.[17]

So secondary education in Russia, regarded as the educational foundation, was to receive two types of schools, preparing future graduates to activity in diverse areas of social, economic and political life.

The new bill was prepared in secret. The work and the very procedure of approving the bill violated prevailing Russian law in several respects. This was because the new minister was aware that in the State Council, one of Russia’s most important state authorities, there existed a strong opposition against establishing classical gymnasiums as the only type of a secondary school giving students a ticket to university.[18] The opposition argued that there was a need to strengthen real (scientific) education of youth because of urgent state, economic and social interests.[19] The minister’s opponents could also support their arguments with recently published works by Herbert Spencer, an English educationalist who undermined the purpose of the classical education and emphasized advantages of real sciences in the context of the modernization process occurring in Europe.[20]

During the presentation of the gymnasium statute, Tolstoi challenged the claims of real gymnasium advocates on account of the unsuitability of the contents of the subjects taught for the concept of “general education”. He also stated that the real gymnasiums existing until then did not provide sufficient preparation to studying at higher specialist schools. In his opinion, practice had shown that classical gymnasiums would prepare students for such schools equally well, if not better. Therefore he proposed that real schools to be established should prepare students mainly for specific jobs in trade and industry, and only the most able ones – for higher specialist schools.[21]

Despite the fierce opposition in the State Council, the Minister of Education’s bill was approved by the Tsar and became a binding law. Pursuant to its assumptions, the classical gymnasium was to become the basic kind of a secondary school, open to all social classes, which was to prepare youth for university education, not depriving them of the opportunity to continue studying in higher schools of a different type. The curriculum of a classical gymnasium assumed that the main subjects were to be classical languages: Latin and Greek, and mathematics. The number of teaching hours for these subjects was increased. The syllabus envisaged 49 hours a week for Latin (accumulated number for 8 years of teaching at a gymnasium), 36 hours for Greek, and 37 hours for mathematics (including a total of 8 hours for physics, mathematical geography and natural history combined). The justification for the high number of hours devoted to Greek, as compared to Western European countries, was the great influence of the Greek culture, through the Byzantine Empire, on Russian culture. The remaining subjects were regarded as less important. Russian – the basic official language of the Russian Empire – was to be taught for 24 hours per week (12 hours less in the preparatory class for 2 years). The number of teaching hours of religion, history, natural history, draughtsmanship, calligraphy and drawing was reduced.[22]

The importance of the major subjects in a gymnasium increased even further as a result of the use of a concentric curriculum with reference to all the subjects. This meant that the syllabi of secondary subjects were to be adjusted so as to support the study of the major subjects. In particular, this concerned modern languages, including Russian, and history. Because language classes involved mainly giving students information and grammatical rules, the process was to be strictly synchronized with the teaching of Latin and Greek grammars.[23] The objective was to accelerate and facilitate the study of classical subjects. The lengthy duration of the gymnasium course (8 years, or even 10 together with the preparatory class), closing with a successful passing of the final examination was to guarantee the moral and intellectual maturity of the student, making it possible for him or her to study at any type of a higher school.

On the other hand, the statute on real schools of 15 May 1872 envisaged that their curricula would provide students with basics of secondary education, focused on practical needs. Depending on the local conditions, the schools could have the full six-year course or a shortened one – three, four or five years. In the curriculum of the real schools subjects were divided into general and specialist ones. The general subjects included then: Russian, religion, mathematics, history, geography and modern languages. A group of intermediate subjects included: physics, natural history, calligraphy, draughtsmanship and drawing. Specialist subjects were divided into several groups. The oldest classes could have the following profiles: general, mechanical and technical, chemical and technical.[24]

As far as the gymnasium is concerned, the curriculum was arranged so as to satisfy the requirements connected with the achievement of the moral and intellectual maturity by students, which involved passing the final exam. The most difficult was the exam in classical languages. The student was told not only to translate correctly certain fragments of texts into Latin and Greek, and then into Russian, but also to use information from other subjects operationally in connection with the fragment being translated. In addition, particular emphasis was put on the appropriate choice of vocabulary in connection with the topics of the essays written by students, clarity, lucidity and logic of the developed argument.[25]

Despite the declaration made by the “classical party” that this type of instruction would introduce students into the world of human thoughts and ideas, and in that regard the classical education was supposed to dominate over the real education, the practice showed something very different. Three years after the adoption of the gymnasium statute, the Ministry of Education published executive regulations, including framework syllabi for all subjects[26]. Obviously, the major role in the curriculum was to be played by classical languages – Latin and Greek. However, the contents of the language instruction – including modern languages – proved that the claim [made by the classicists] was false. The study of languages was reduced to a large extent to teaching grammar – etymology and syntax. In the gymnasium, ancient authors were read: first of all Caesar, Cornelius Nepos, Ovid, to whose texts a considerable number of hours were devoted in particular classes.[27] But these texts were treated as models of correct grammatical structures, which students were told to master fluently. The Russian language was treated in a similar fashion. The first four years, with the greatest number of hours devoted to it, were devoted to Russian and Old Church Slavonic grammar. Only higher classes – fifth, sixth and seventh, where the number of hours was lower – were devoted to analysis of literary works and history of literature. However, analysis of literary works – whether Russian or ancient – was a problem to which the Ministry of Education gave much thought. The problem was that not all the contents of education in humanities corresponded to the strategic objectives of the reformed educational system. Already before, in the years 1849-1850, therefore directly after the Spring of Nations, the government circles accused the classical gymnasiums that their syllabi contributed to spreading Republican ideas in Russia.[28] As it turned out in practice, the isolation of youth from modern ideas by drawing their attention to remote problems of the ancient reality not always produced expected results. The nature of the limitations connected with ideological and literary education of students can be seen from the instruction in the framework syllabus of Russian, concerning the reading of literary works. The aim of this education was not to prepare students to respond to a literary work critically but only to “assess the value of a literary work using thorough judgments”[29]. According to the authors of the curriculum, students of a gymnasium would not have sufficient knowledge to present a critique of a literary work. Therefore it was forbidden in a gymnasium to teach any classes which would require students to present their own analyses and apply the basics of literary criticism to the works read. On the other hand, the classes were to teach students to read literary works with understanding and apply to them appropriate concepts of literary theory and history. But any analyses known as aesthetic, artistic, psychological or social criticism were to be completely excluded.[30] Classes of this type were to be taught only at university.

The importance of particular subjects in a gymnasium corresponded to the level of requirements set for the student. This applied in particular to the final examination, which – according to the ministry’s plans – was to show the student’s moral and intellectual maturity to start studies in any type of a higher school, especially at university. The examination subjects in state gymnasiums were: religion, Russian, Latin, Greek, mathematics and history. On the other hand, students in private gymnasiums and those who wanted to take the final examination a year earlier had to be examined in all the subjects taught.[31] In accordance with the principle of focusing efforts on the central subjects, the most demanding requirements concerned Latin, Greek and mathematics. The final examination in Latin involved translating an appropriately large fragment of Caesar’s memoirs or other historical works from Russian into Latin. Apart from prose, the student was told to translate poetic works. The final examination in Greek looked similar. The fragments were selected in order to make it possible to assess the student’s familiarity with Greek and Latin grammar.[32] As for Russian, the exam involved a written essay which was planned to test the student’s skills of composition, choice of vocabulary appropriate for the topic, clarity, consistence and logic of the argument.

The final examination was one which was supposed to show that a gymnasium graduate had both intellectual and moral predisposition required by the ministry. The framework curriculum also served that purpose. To satisfy the examination requirements the student had to memorize a lot of information about the classical antiquity. The material was presented and consolidated during eight years. Any departures from the ministry’s plan threatened students with their enormous efforts being wasted.

The framework curriculum and the system of examination requirements drawn in this way were to lead ultimately to the formation of the student’s predisposition which the Ministry of Education regarded as crucial for the future of the Russian intelligentsia. This concerned not so much the fluent knowledge of Latin, Greek or other languages taught in gymnasiums, but rather the skills of clear, lucid, logical and precise thinking, acquired during extensive and painstaking study of grammars of these languages. Teaching languages with the emphasis on grammar was to be a tool to form desired features of the student’s mind. Similar qualities were supposed to be produced by solving mathematical problems. On the other hand, deliberate effort was taken to prevent the student absolutely from participating in any classes which could lead to independent thinking, judgment or opinion. The instruction was planned to prepare the future graduates to solve logical problems but not to take their own decisions or to form a judgement on the real world.

It was such preparation of gymnasium students that satisfied officials of the Ministry of Education at the time. While reforming many areas of social and state life, the ruling elites were perfectly aware of the necessity for institutional reforms to be accompanied by the preparation of new personnel to new tasks.

Such was the point of the dispute between realists and classicists. The former wanted mainly education of employees for emerging new branches of the industry. In such a case humanities, such as Latin and Greek, seemed relatively not very useful or even unnecessary. The real education – apart from science – demanded subjects oriented to the present and future, such as an introduction to legal sciences and modern languages.

The model of classical gymnasium enforced by Tsar Alexander II corresponded more to the very needs of the state – to provide qualified personnel indispensable in the institutions which were being expanded. After a gymnasium, a graduate could find a job in the state administration, at a low and middle level. At this level of authority, excessive independence and inventiveness are not especially valued. What matters most is the ability to perform instructions from superiors efficiently.

A gymnasium was to prepare young people to study at university. University education provided much greater opportunities of promotion in the state administration.[33] It was higher schools that were to produce managerial staff for state institutions. To educate managers, it is necessary to form in them the intellectual predisposition allowing them to manage large groups of people. Hence, university syllabi could include contents whose purpose was to exercise critical thinking.

The curriculum of a gymnasium as a secondary school was also to be free of real subjects (science), which – according to the ministry officials – were responsible for spreading materialism and nihilism in Russia. Especially unprivileged classes were threatened with these intellectual trends. Studies of nature, oriented to the present, could provoke students to reflect on their own situation. If “subversive” tendencies disseminated in various offices following successive waves of graduates from the lower social classes, this would be dangerous for the Russian state in its form at the time.

Obviously, it was impossible to carry out such elimination in real schools. But here the risk was much lower from the point of view of the state’s interest. Those schools, after all, were to educate personnel for industry and commerce rather than persons participating to a certain extent in exercising state authority. It was for that reason that Count Dmitry Tolstoi, the Minister of Education, opposed so vigorously the idea of granting equal rights to both types of gymnasiums, the classical and the real one, as much as the idea of admitting the graduates of the latter ones to university.

In conclusion, it should be stated as a result of the hierarchy of strategic objectives of the state, it was the classical gymnasium rather than the real one that became the most important institution of secondary education in Russia. What is more, the achievement of certain objectives of the state, regarded as priorities, made it difficult, if not impossible, to attain other goals. The curriculum of a Russian classical gymnasium was completely unfit for assimilation objectives, because it hindered the Russification of Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Poles and other nationalities. This was because the central contents of this education were not connected with the Russian culture. The curriculum, modelled on the Prussian gymnasium, taught primarily contents and ideas characteristic for the foundation of the Western culture, even in the case of the study of Greek, because works read in this language were strictly related to the Western cultural tradition. In that sense, the gymnasium reform in tsarist Russia from the beginning of the 1870s confirmed the European aspirations of that country, concerning both the sphere of culture and civilisation.

References:

1. Filippov M. M., Reforma gimnazij i universitetov, Sankt Peterburg 1901.

2. Ganelin Š. I., Očerki po istorii srednej školy v Rossii votroj poloviny XIX veka, Moskva 1950, Akadenija Pedagogičeskich nauk RFSR.

3. Kandaurova T. N., Gimnazii [w:] Očerki russkoj kultury XIX veka. Vol. 3. Kulturnyj potencjal obščestva, Moskva 2001.

4. Petrov F. A., Gutnov D. A., Rossijskije universitety [in:] Očerki russkoj kultury.

5. Pipes R., Rosja carów, Warsaw 2006, Magnum.

6. Piskunov A. I.[ed.], Očerki istorii školy i pedagogičeskoj mysli narodov SSSR. Vtoraja polovina XIX veka, Moskva 1976, Pedagogika.

7. Polnoe Sobranije Zakonow Rossijskoj Impierii. Zakony 1866 goda, quoted after: Vestnik Evropy , 13 May 1866.

8. Roždestvenskij S. V., Kratkij obzor dejatelnosti Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvjaščenja 1802 – 1902, Sankt Peterburg 1902.

9. Sbornik’ postanovlenij i rasporaženij po gimnazijam i progimnazijam vedomstva Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvjaščenja, Sankt Peterburg 1874.

10. Sinel A., The classroom and the chancellery. State educational reform in Russia under count Dmitry Tolstoi, Harvard University Press, Massachussets, 1973.

11. Spencer H., Education Intelectual, Moral and Physical, London 1861.

[1] R. Pipes, Rosja carów, Warsaw 2006, Magnum, pp. 168-169.

[2] A. Sinel, The classroom and the chancellery. State educational reform in Russia under count Dmitry Tolstoi, Harvard University Press, Massachussets, 1973, p. 131.

[3] Ibid., p. 134; A. I. Piskunov [ed.], Očerki istorii školy i pedagogičeskoj mysli narodov SSSR. Vtoraja polovina XIX veka, Moskva 1976, Pedagogika, p. 108.

[4] Š. I. Ganelin, Očerki po istorii srednej školy v Rossii votroj poloviny XIX veka, Moskva 1950, Akadenija Pedagogičeskich nauk RFSR, p. 12-28.

[5] S. V. Roždestvenskij, Kratkij obzor dejatelnosti Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvjaščenja 1802 – 1902, Sankt Peterburg 1902, p. 437.

[6] T. N. Kandaurova, Gimnazii [in:] Očerki russkoj kultury XIX veka. Vol. 3. Kulturnyj potencjal obščestva, Moskva 2001, pp. 98 – 99; Roždestvenskij, op. cit., pp. 98-99.

[10] Polnoe Sobranije Zakonow Rossijskoj Impierii. Zakony 1866 goda, quoted after: Vestnik Evropy, 13 May 1866.

[11] A. Sinel, op. cit., p. 131; Š. Ganelin, op. cit., p. 40.

[14] S. V. Roždestvenskij, op. cit., p. 516; T. N. Kandaurova, op. cit., p. 98.

[20] H. Spencer, Education Intelectual, Moral and Physical, London 1861.

[22] T. N. Kandaurova, op. cit., p. 100; M. M. Filippov, Reforma gimnazij i universitetov, Sankt Peterburg 1901 [in:] Očerki russkoj kultury XIX veka. Kulturnyj potencjal obščestva, Moskva 2001, p. 30.

[23] Sbornik’ postanovlenij i rasporaženij po gimnazijam i progimnazijam vedomstva Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvjaščenja, Sankt Peterburg 1874, pp. 194-195.

[25] Sbornik’ postanovlenij i rasporaženij..., op. cit., p. 365

[26] Sbornik’ postanovlenij i rasporaženij..., op. cit., pp. 166- 337.

[28] A. I. Piskunov [ed.], Očerki istorii... op. cit., p. 107.

[29] Sbornik’..., op. cit., pp. 206 – 207.

[33] F. A. Petrov, D. A. Gutnov, Rossijskije universitety [in:] Očerki russkoj kultury, op. cit., p. 135.