We spoke with Yefim Pivovar, Rector of the Russian State University for the Humanities, Head of the Department of History of Post-Soviet Countries at the MSU Faculty of History and Associate Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, on the uniform standard of teaching history in schools, the reasons for and methods of updating history textbooks and the inevitability of reforming the Unified State Exam.
Do you think the new uniform education standard of teaching history in schools is working?
I’m glad that we managed to do without a uniform history textbook. Every thoughtful person knows that the truth is somewhere in-between. When it comes to history, one may find out the truth after juxtaposing the facts from different sources, which in case of schoolchildren means different textbooks. It doesn’t matter if those textbooks are on paper or in electronic form, or if they are comprised of scientifically accurate data on the Internet. There can be no single dogmatic point of view today. However, there is a vast number of textbooks that have been found substandard, which is unfortunate. It’s a good thing that some inadequate or faulty textbooks have lost the “Approved” or “Recommended” stamps, since they violated the main standard of teaching history—they didn’t juxtapose the facts. The new standard is not perfect, it needs to be polished, it's somewhat controversial, but it challenges children not only to remember, but also to think, analyze, contest things. So I think we’re moving in the right direction.
Which textbooks adopted by the uniform standard do you consider best?
I’m afraid I can’t give an objective answer to that question. I write textbooks, too. I can only say that when I write, I don’t read textbooks by other Russian authors—they tend to throw me off. I do read foreign authors. It can be useful. For instance, I went to Braunschweig once, to a history and geography textbooks institute. Thanks to German historians I adopted an important methodology: showing history through everyday life and culture. I try to incorporate those aspects into my textbooks in an organic way. I won’t mention which textbooks; however, as soon as I was done with them, I scrolled through some modern history textbooks for schools and colleges. Many of them are still dominated by politics. There is too little real history—everyday life, let alone culture. I am convinced that textbooks of this kind, including some of the books approved by the new uniform standard, need work.
Could the constant process of rewriting history result in a lack of vibrant history in our textbooks?
Look at the Russian language, for example. It’s evolving, and we know from practice that dictionaries should be updated every 20-25 years. Living history needs updating as well. Case in point: recent research on the 1917 Revolution shows that there was no NEP or military communism per se in Russia. Also, we now understand the true impact of some historical events that were once considered “minor” or even not worthy of a historian’s attention, like the peasant rebellion in Tambov or the Kronstadt uprising against the Soviet authorities.1994 saw the publication of documents and research proving that, among other things, the Bolsheviks used chemical weapons. Apparently those events were more dramatic than we thought. They have to be conceptualized. One can’t help but remember research conducted by Alexander Fursenko and his three-volume records of the Presidium of the Bolsheviks’ Central Committee. I wish I knew all this years ago when I was writing the Our Fatherland college textbooks.
Political expert and historian Vyacheslav Nikonov has just published his book Civilization Code. What Awaits Russia in the Future World? which you discussed with other experts. Many of them said that it could be used as a textbook for high-schoolers and senior students. What is your opinion on the matter?
I think the Education Ministry and the Academy of Sciences should look into Civilization Code and consider including some of its chapters or sections—or even the whole book—into the social science course. Again, I agree that history should be taught according to a uniform standard, but I think there should be different textbooks. Like Civilization Code. It’s good because historical prognostication is an extremely tricky subject, but Civilization Code gets it right. I think it’s due to the fact that the author didn’t try to glorify Russia’s historical mission—a trap many Russian and foreign historians fall into—but focused on the challenges Russia faced in different epochs and on its ability to overcome them, with resulting losses and accomplishments. So now we have a book worthy of being taught in schools and colleges, a summary showing Russia’s position in the modern world.
How difficult is it for teachers to keep up with new history textbooks?
To a thoughtful teacher, every textbook is further reading, while every lesson is based on materials from different sources. It’s a promising method. Besides, we could learn from our foreign colleagues who don’t use textbooks outside of class. Those are usually very thick books; children don’t even take them home.
Can religious studies lessons or FRCSE (Fundamentals of Religious Cultures and Secular Ethics. – Russkiy Mir) modules become regular school courses with time?
It’s possible, but only if this good endeavor is thoroughly prepared and implemented in a thoughtful way. So far, the results of this experiment have been questionable and sometimes problematic. In any case, scholars have decided that there would be five modules—Christian, Islamic, Judaist, Buddhist and Secular ones. We could adapt History of World Religions edited by member of the Academy of Sciences Alexander Chubaryan into a study guide.
Parents from different regions are often displeased with the FRCSE experiment. They don’t like it when Orthodox educators teach Buddhism or Islam, or the other way round. Is there a way to solve this problem?
I took part in developing the theology standard for higher education institutions back in the day. Church’s hierarchs made their contributions as well. According to the standard, an Orthodox educator can teach Islamic, Judaist or Buddhist theology. It’s possible to practice one religion and teach another one. We could use this model in schools, too. This is what religious tolerance is about—not only knowing and respecting another religion, but also accepting it.
What do you think about the future of the Unified State Exam (EGE) in history? Are you against it?
First off, I think there’s no point in fighting EGE. It’s already here. We can only improve it now. In my opinion, introduction of a Student’s Portfolio would reduce the tension surrounding the exam. After all, we modeled EGE after European and American exams. But those have both exams and portfolios. Some countries consider the exam part of the portfolio. The portfolio contains grades for a given subject received over the last five years. Why? There once was a scandal when thousands of students cheated in a unified math exam. We could disregard those results just by looking at students’ past grades. Also, undergraduates indicate the grades they are going to get—it’s a self-assessment exercise. We could have undergraduates list the universities they would like to enter. By doing this, we would make EGE what it's supposed to be—a component of the knowledge assessment process. However, today EGE is the main component of the process, with no portfolio in sight. This concept should be developed and adopted. We also need Olympiads and other forms of testing. Eventually, EGE could form part of the portfolio. Why not?
