After the class hour, it’s not scary to die – Newspaper Kommersant No. 158 (7359) of 08/30/2022

The Ministry of Education introduces a patriotic lesson “Conversations about the important” into the school curriculum. It follows from the methodological materials: teachers should lead third-graders to the idea that “the happiness of the Motherland is more precious than life” and “it’s not scary to die for the Motherland”, fifth-graders should be convinced that “military assistance from the collective West increases the number of victims of the special operation” of the Russian armed forces on the territory Ukraine, and for high school students to cite as an example the hero who lured the nationalists into the minefields. Lawyers disagreed on whether such lessons were against the law. But some teachers found in them “an attempt by the state to impose a ‘party line’ on children.”

“Starting from the new academic year, every Monday in all schools of the country begins with the lesson “Conversations about the important,” says the special website of the Ministry of Education, which is dedicated to the new subject. “Conversations about the important” appear on the website of the Ministry of Education as a 30-minute “extracurricular activity” (conducted as part of the so-called class hours). The department claims that the main topics of the course “are related to key aspects of human life in modern Russia.”

So, already on September 12, teachers should conduct a lesson “Our country is Russia” with “patriotism” and “love for the Motherland” as the main “emerging values”. The scenario of the lesson involves listening to the song “Where does the Motherland begin?” for the first and second grades. (first sounded in the 1968 film “Shield and Sword” performed by Mark Bernes). After that, mainly love for Russian nature and wildlife is discussed. The lesson for the third-fourth grades involves a discussion about exactly how children understand the word “Motherland”, and a conversation about the fact that love for the Motherland is “passed down from generation to generation.” Children of this age after listening to the song “Where does the Motherland begin?” the teacher should lead to the idea that “love for the Motherland is not only the ability to admire its beauty, but also the willingness to stand up for one’s Motherland.”

It is expected that the third-fourth grades will be able to quote the proverbs “Happiness of the Motherland is more precious than life” and “For the motherland, it is not scary to die.”

In the methodological recommendations for the fifth-seventh grades, there is a mention of a military special operation in Ukraine – it is declared “a manifestation of genuine patriotism.” There is also a patriotic quiz in the guidelines with questions about the headdress of Russian princes, the number of time zones in the Russian Federation and the Lakhta Center “as the tallest building in Europe.” Then the students are offered a “creative task” with “solving problem situations”. Such a situation is a “request for help to Russia” from the “people’s republics of Donbass” and the decision of President Vladimir Putin to launch a special operation to “protect the population of Donbass” and disarm Ukraine.

“The huge military and other assistance of the collective West to the Ukrainian authorities is prolonging the hostilities, increasing the number of victims of the operation,” says the lesson script for the fifth grader.

These materials contain examples of the heroic actions of Russian soldiers, including the story of Captain Alexander Romanov, who “forced a group of Ukrainian nationalists” into the minefields. According to the scenario of the lesson, the “nationalists” were not blown up by mines, but surrendered.

The same examples are given in the materials for grades 10-11. It also says that true patriots are “ready to defend their homeland with weapons in their hands.” However, it is stipulated that this is “not the only way to manifest patriotism”: “knowledge of the history of one’s country, respect for its culture and traditions” is cited as an example.

Ivan Menshikov, a member of the Uchitel trade union and a teacher at the Khoroshevskaya school in Moscow, considers such class hours “an attempt by the state to impose the “party line” on children.” “The teachers in our country are different, someone is horrified by what is happening, someone supports (special operation.— “b”). We have not yet conducted polls on this topic in the trade union,” says Mr. Menshikov. Alexander Kondrashev, a teacher of history and social studies at the Moscow Intellectual school, says that discussion topics are raised in Conversations about the Important, “but according to the script, there is only one option that the children answer.” “All this may not go according to the scenario from the manuals,” Mr. Kondrashev believes. “The first option is political information, not an educational process. Such events where everyone is present, because it is necessary. The second option is that the lesson will become a trigger for the return of political discussions to schools, and classes will be held more or less openly.”

At the same time, the teacher does not understand how “it will work” in reality.

“If weekly class hours are not part of the curriculum, then children are not required to go there. And parents can write about this to the class teacher, ”says Alexander Kondrashev.

He believes that the new lessons “do not fit into the concept of education at all: maybe this is some kind of preparation for school reforms.” And Ivan Menshikov recalls that political agitation at school is prohibited by the law “On Education in the Russian Federation.”

We note that Art. 5 of the federal law “On the protection of children from information harmful to their health” prohibits the dissemination of information that would harm the health of minors or “the life and health of other persons, or aimed at inducing or otherwise involving children in such actions.” However, lawyer Violetta Volkova sees no contradictions to the law in the scenarios of new lessons. “Raising love for the Motherland in children does not imply their actions to the detriment of themselves, but prepares them for a responsible attitude towards themselves and others — on the example of the heroic behavior of people who are ready to sacrifice their personal for the sake of the public,” Ms. Volkova argues. In addition, the lawyer does not see here a violation of Art. 34 of the Law “On Education in the Russian Federation”, which does not allow the participation of schoolchildren in political actions. “The educational and educational process is not such an action,” she explains. However, lawyer Mikhail Benyash considers such activities to be “political agitation – this is an attempt to influence parents through children in order to create a positive image of the actions of the RF Armed Forces in Ukraine.”

In this regard, Mr. Benyash recalls the “lessons of peace” in the Soviet school, when they told “about nuclear bombings: then they said that Comrade Brezhnev (General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Leonid Brezhnev.— “b”) is dead and there is no one to protect us.”

“Once upon a time, Vladimir Putin was asked whether state ideology should be returned to Russia. And he answered that the state ideology is patriotism,” recalls political scientist Vladimir Slatinov, who considers the new lessons of the Ministry of Education “an understanding of patriotism as love for the state system.” In his opinion, the new classes have “the goal of increasing the loyalty of the population to the current model of state policy, which begins to take shape from an early age.” Political scientist Mikhail Vinogradov predicts a different reaction of teachers to the lessons. “Those who experienced the Soviet era as a whole can quite easily return to the aesthetics of teaching in the 1980s, when the emphasis on love for the Motherland gradually began to take a greater place in comparison with the ideas of socialism and communism,” he suggests. some teachers will try to avoid conflict, radicalization of rhetoric and will try to make the course less memorable. The “smell of mothballs” and the influence of Soviet textbooks on the authors of the classes are also felt by political scientist Konstantin Kalachev. “Whether this language will be understood by children, whether all this is effective is an open question,” he argues. At the same time, Mr. Kalachev believes that the topic of patriotism is close to schoolchildren and they will perceive the new lesson “just as part of the program,” while there will be few parents among those who want to “protest under the conditions of a military special operation.”

Alexander Voronov, Anna Vasilyeva