The inclusion of composition as a part of the Unified State Exam continues to cause disagreement among teachers. Natalia Solzhenitsyna, the widow of writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn and member of the Expert Council of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science, asserts that it is of essential importance that everyone be able to coherently present their thoughts. In a special interview for the Russkiy Mir Portal, Natalia Solzhenitsyna spoke about the return of the composition requirement and how this element will be further developed.
– You are a member of the Expert Council of the Ministry of Education and Science, which is engaged in the reform of the Unified State Exam, including the composition requirement. Right now there is a debate over what is most important: to be able to write properly or the ability to express one own thoughts? Perhaps it should be done away with altogether?
– It was already thrown out once. Now, thank God, we managed to return it. I think that we will be able to stand our ground so that it is not tossed out again, although such suggestions have been made.
– Well then what is most important for the school composition – correct grammar or the ability to express a thought?
– Both are important. In general, proper grammar is important both in terms of not making mistakes in writing and avoiding such mistakes in life. So it is no less important to be able to express ones thoughts properly in speech and in writing. Everyone needs this – both the sales clerk in the store and the engineer defending his plans, as well as the mother speaking to her children.
– How did you manage to return the composition, as it was long ago abandoned as a testing tool?
– We have reached a critical situation. And this has finally been understood. On the one hand, there has been a flood of visual methods for expressing thoughts which are conquering books. They haven’t conquered books yet, but they are on the offensive. There is this enormous onslaught of television and personal gadgets which drive an internetization of thinking. I am not against this, but at present it entails a large degree of approximation and carelessness in their methods of visualization, both on the screen and in writing. On the other hand, this situation was made worse by the rejection of composition. As a results we have lost several generations of people who are capable of coherently or at least ably expressing their thoughts in writing and in communication.
– Do you believe that the testing requirements for both grammar and the ability to express one’s thoughts in writing should be increased?
– Yes, but not at a rapid pace. I personally do not believe that it is an adequate situation when the majority of the country’s population practically does not know how to express themselves properly and coherently or to present their thoughts in conversation – this is a situation in which the population is being dumbed down, and it is a threat to the national security of the country. That is another reason why I am glad that we managed to begin the process of returning composition to the curriculum.
– What is your vision for the new format of composition?
– The grammar requirements are not going to be very high. I believe that it should take into consideration a simple principle: the composition should not duplicate the Unified State Exam. That is already there. If a person has managed to express his thoughts in the composition but made too many grammatical mistakes, then there is an additional filter for that – the Russian language test of the Unified State Exam. This way the composition is more straightforward, and a chance remains: if someone at least passes the composition, then this means that he can formulate his thoughts.
Moreover, in the new composition requirement we decided to take a fresh look at the actual situation, to move away from the school literature curriculum and make sure that the composition assignment is not an exam on literature but rather an exam that is rooted in literature. Students are not going to be asked to describe the character of Tatiana Larina and the position of tertiary characters in “Fathers and Sons”. They will be asked other questions, the kind of questions which provoke one to think, discuss and find intellectual answers. About our lives: How far back do you know your family tree? How do fascists in films differ from today’s neo-Nazis? Why does someone need travel, cinema, sport, literature? Or – does literature help you in your real life?
– Could the composition become a some sort of shield for those who manage to pass it but cannot pass the Russian language test of the Unified State Exam?
– I must say that the questions you are asking are very pessimistic. Why are they only about those young people who are digressing?
– It seems to me that is the trend. And you seem to confirm this…
– That is a trend, but, for example, I was recently at the All-Russia Olympiad on Literature for Schoolchildren. Children from all over the country came to Moscow – they were the winners of the literature contests in their regions. Amazing children. They not only read a lot, love books, know contemporary literary trends and styles, but they also speak very well, have respectful debates and have differences. And with such an intellectual emphasis that you would be really be surprised. I recognize that these children represent a thin intellectual segment, and this segment is getting thinner. But throughout all times it was never a fat segment. These children are interested not only in literature as a possible future profession but also think more broadly – they study exact and natural sciences, and they read prolifically. We have a lot of young people like this.
As I see it, the trend is not limited to the dumbing down of the population. There is also a certain fatigue stemming from illiteracy and superficiality. There is a striving for profound knowledge. And a desire to learn. These trends give us reason for hope. Ten-fifteen years ago the situation was worse. Study had only an applied purpose: all for the sake of getting a diploma. Today a demand for a broad education is returning. It’s another thing that polarization has occurred: some are sliding further toward barbarization while for others the opposite is true. Our objective is to prevent the former from sliding back to the stone age of thinking with gadgets in their hands while providing the later the freedom of self-expression.
Vladimir Emilyanenko
