Further reorganization educational system was associated with the events of December 1825, the Decembrist uprising, which had a huge impact on all sides social life Russian Empire. The new Emperor Nicholas I saw one of the reasons for the revolutionary uprisings in the imperfection of the educational system. Thoughts about the “perverseness” of domestic education were repeatedly expressed by the Minister of Public Education, Admiral A.S. Shishkov, who was in this position in 1824-1828. He believed that public education should be national in content and help strengthen the autocracy.

Your views A.C. Shishkov also conducted through the Committee for the Arrangement educational institutions who worked from 1826 to 1835. The committee prepared: the charter of gymnasiums and schools of the county and parish (1828), the charter of St. Vladimir University in Kyiv (1833), the regulation on educational districts (1835) and the General charter of the imperial Russian universities (1835) .

The development of the charter of gymnasiums proceeded in sharp disagreements on the question of the nature of 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, allowed a certain independence of the gymnasium course, as “providing methods of decent noble education to 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, put their native language, literature, history, foreign languages ​​and law at the center of study. In search of a compromise between these two opposing and one-sided solutions to the issue, the majority of the committee members outlined three options for the direction of the development of gymnasiums:

1) type duality high school in the form of the parallel existence of classical gymnasiums, preparing for universities, and special schools, providing a complete education;

2) the bifurcation of the senior classes of the gymnasium, branching education along the same two lines;

3) a single type of gymnasium with a narrow classical program (without the Greek language), supplemented by the teaching of native and new foreign languages and some natural sciences.

The author of the last proposal was S. S. Uvarov. Nicholas I supported his version, which was included in the approved charter. The new charter put forward the goal for the gymnasiums, on the one hand, to prepare for listening to university lectures, on the other hand, "to provide methods of decent education." 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, gymnasiums were divided into gymnasiums with and without Greek. At the head of the gymnasium, as before, was the director, who was assisted by an inspector, elected from among the senior teachers, to monitor order in the classrooms and housekeeping in boarding schools. The title of honorary trustee was also established, for general supervision with the director, of the gymnasium and boarding school. 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. The study of the Latin language and ancient literature as knowledge, accustoming the mind "to attentiveness, diligence, modesty and thoroughness" was given most of the study time - 39 hours. The number of lessons on the Law of God and the native language increased. Of the remaining subjects remained: geography, and statistics, history, physics, new languages, calligraphy and drawing. Charter of gymnasiums and schools in 1828 until the 60s. has not been revised. However, it was amended by separate orders of the government. So, in 1839, a special “Regulations on real classes at educational institutions of the Ministry of Public Education” was published, and in 1849-1852. Significant changes were made to the curricula of the gymnasiums.

Further transformations of the public education system of the 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, June 25, 1835 was also prepared. the regulation on educational districts of the Ministry of Public Education was approved, which created the necessary legal foundations for the effective management of education in the Russian Empire. According to the document, all educational institutions were divided into eight districts: at the head of which were universities with a trustee.

By the mid 30s. 19th century Russia had six universities: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Kharkov, Kyiv (St. Vladimir) and Derpt. The life of the first four of them was regulated by a charter prepared by the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions, and approved by the highest on July 26, 1835. Two other universities, Derpt and Kyiv, functioned on the basis of charters 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 (in contrast 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, the rector of the university, 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 help from the university council on purely academic matters. However, this did not happen in practice. The new centralized system of management of educational districts 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 first duty of the trustee was to see strictly that the university staff faithfully performed their duties, and to watch over their ability to work, morality and devotion.

If the teacher did not meet these requirements, the trustee could reprimand him or dismiss him if he considered 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 board of the university, which, in addition to him, included the rector, deans of the faculties and the inspector. The board of the university council was entrusted with the care of finances, materiel, staff and office, as well as the function of maintaining order at the university. The former university judiciary was abolished and transferred to the local judiciary. And, finally, now the trustee, and not the rector, appointed an inspector to supervise the students, and not from among the professors, as was the case before, but from among the officials.

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

Professors who served for 25 years were awarded the title of Honored Professor and received a pension in the amount of their full salary. 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 he received a pension in addition to his full salary for five years.

The professorial colleges retained such academic rights as the distribution training courses, scholarships, discussion teaching aids and teaching methods. The university council has fully retained the functions of overseeing its own academic life: professors retained the privilege of duty-free and uncensored importation of materials for scientific studies, the right to independently censor dissertations and scientific works of teachers, as well as university publications printed at public expense, etc. the council continued to elect from among its professors the rector and deans for a four-year term, with their subsequent approval 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. Professors were released from administrative duties, which, as a rule, were a burden to them and were performed by them unimportantly. The new charter encouraged professors to focus on scientific research and student education. Each university created a university-wide department of theology, church history and church law for all students of the Greek-Russian faith.

Scholars acknowledged that the University Charter of 1835 was a step back in terms of university autonomy compared to the Charter of 1804, but was more liberal than the charters of German universities, and even more so of France, where universities were generally not recognized by scientific communities.

Along with the charter of 1835, the states of the universities were also approved. As part of the Moscow, Kazan, Kharkov and Kyiv universities There were three faculties: philosophy, law and medicine. Until the end of the 1840s. The Faculty of Philosophy was divided into two departments: verbal and natural. Petersburg University did not have a medical faculty, but in 1856 another one 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 lecturers of foreign languages, a drawing teacher and a teacher of arts (fencing, music, dance, riding ride). A somewhat smaller staff was allocated for the St. Petersburg and Kyiv (where also initially there was no medical faculty) universities. Ordinary and extraordinary professors were required to have a Doctor of Science degree, adjuncts - a Master of Science degree.

The legislation of tsarist Russia included university teachers in the general system of official hierarchy. They were endowed with the corresponding class ranks and wore uniforms. The rector relied on the rank of V class, the ordinary professor - class VII, the extraordinary professor, adjunct and prosector - class VIII. The presence of a scientific degree upon entering the civil service also gave the right to ranks: a doctor of science received the rank of V class, a master - IX, a candidate - X class. By the end of his teaching activities many professors rose to the rank of real privy councilor, and some even reached the rank of privy councilor. Acquisition of scholarship opened for those who did not have a noble rank, the path to it. Legislatively, the rank of the IX class gave personal, and the IV class (actual state councilor) hereditary nobility.

The Russian students of the second half of the 1930s, as before, were divided 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 paid their own fees for their education, after which they could freely find employment. State-owned students lived in boarding houses at the university on full state support and were obliged to work for the corresponding assignment for six years after completing the course. Students were supposed to wear dark blue, decorated with gold buttons and gold-embroidered buttonholes. uniform, a cocked hat and a sword relied on it. Under the statutes of 1804, students were responsible for their conduct to professor-inspectors and an independent university court. For Nicholas I, this system seemed insufficient. In the charter of 1835, new rules for the conduct of students and supervision of them were legalized. Now the chief inspector of each university, a high-ranking and highly paid official, was called to his post from civil or military service and had to, relying on the staff of his deputies, control the piety, diligence and cleanliness of students.

At the end of the university, some of the students were awarded the title of a real student and the rank of the XII class. Students who successfully passed the exams and submitted a dissertation or who were previously awarded a medal for writing were awarded academic degree Candidate of Sciences and the right to the rank of X class. University graduates had legal grounds to enter the state or military service, ask 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 best universities Europe.

The progressive development of Russian universities was facilitated by the government's policy aimed at teaching staff highly qualified - difficult for high school question. Initially, universities replenished 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. Golitsyn, attempts were made to train professors abroad from among the Russian students sent there, but this did not reduce the need for Russian universities in qualified teaching staff. A breakthrough in this direction was made with the opening in 1827 of the Professorial Institute at Dorpat University. Only two graduates of the Professors' 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 trainees from each university) annually 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, until 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 of 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 National economy countries.

towards the middle 19th century domestic universities, under the influence of the historically determined tasks of the socio-economic development of the country, overcame the boundaries strictly designated by them by the autocratic government - the training of educated officials - and became the most important social institution, which determined the direction of the progressive movement of the entire educational system of the country, its cultural image in the sphere of material production and spiritual state.

The king himself was of the opinion that “not to enlightenment, but to idleness of the mind, more harmful than the idleness of bodily strength, - this self-will of thoughts, this pernicious luxury of half-knowledge, this impulse to dreamy extremes, of which the beginning is damage to morals, and the end is death. He sought to build a system of public education and upbringing that would leave no room for revolutionary aspirations of the youth. 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, based on 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 of 1828 and universities of 1835. As a result, by the mid-1950s 19th century Russian education was in a state of crisis. The formation of negative phenomena in the functioning of the education system occurred gradually and was associated with the specific names of senior government officials from the Ministry of Education, who acted in line with the general regulations of the emperor. Among them special role belongs to S. S. Uvarov.

Uvarov put a broad program based on the historical principles of Russian statehood and culture as the basis for the activities of the ministry. “According to Uvarov, it was necessary to adapt the general world education to our national life, to our national spirit”, to establish it on the historical principles of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality in order to preserve the power and well-being 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 dated November 19, 1833.

When establishing the Committee for the Arrangement 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, hitherto fragmented, all means of general and private education, left without respect and part without supervision, all elements that have taken a direction unreliable or even wrong, to assimilate the development of minds to the needs of the state, to ensure, as far as human thinking is given, the future in the present. Uvarov believed that his vocation in the ministerial post was to lay a solid foundation for Russian education, while relying 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 an increase in the number of teachers, who 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 improving the training in it of teachers not only of gymnasiums, but also elementary school. But in this matter, protective interests overshadowed common sense. In the 1940s, again, as in the 1920s, hostility to teachers' institutes intensified, where young people of ignoble origin aspired, who received the 14th grade at the end. It seemed to many, including the sovereign, that this undermined the foundations of the social order. In 1844, Uvarov was forced to bar access to the institute to members of the "taxable" class on the grounds that there were supposedly enough applicants from the "free" classes; the number of students has halved. In 1847, the second category of the Main Pedagogical Institute was again closed, where teachers for elementary school were trained, and in 1858 the entire institute. Teachers now had to be trained only at universities, which recruited students mainly from the upper strata of society.

Nicholas 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 royal rescript, devoted to the discussion in the Committee on 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, most for him necessary, able to serve to improve his lot, and not being lower than his condition, also did not strive to exaggerate to rise above the one in which, in the ordinary course of affairs, he was destined to remain.

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

Similar restrictions were retained in the updated charter of 1828. For persons of the “non-free” class, the possibility of entering a secondary or higher educational institution was conditioned by the need to obtain official release from former duties. The relative accessibility of education for all Russians has become possible since the time of Peter I, when the social structure of the country was already difficult to regulate. In the future, the estate structure became more and more mobile, and it was no longer possible to organize a school strictly on the basis of estate continuity. Therefore, the school system was built in such a way that it corresponded to class needs, but also would allow a certain social mobility, without making it a goal.

The desire to protect educational institutions that provide secondary and higher education, from the penetration of representatives of non-noble estates into them, led to the need to erect legislative barriers for these estates. In 1837 they were placed before the serfs. This year, by royal command, a Committee was formed to review the existing regulations on the admission to educational institutions of people of not free states. It included M. M. Speransky, Count Benckendorff, the ministers of public education and internal affairs. As a result of the work of this Committee, in May 1837, a royal rescript addressed to Uvarov appeared, in which Nicholas I instructed the minister 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 the prevention of harmful consequences" - this is how the purpose of this measure was defined, indicating an understanding of the danger of allowing the natural mental development of a serf, which will inevitably lead to a protest against slave bonds.

Restrictions extended to other classes as well. In 1840, Uvarov, after visiting the University of St. Vladimir in Kyiv addressed the trustees of educational districts with a secret circular, in which it was stated that “when admitting students, it is necessary to pay some attention both to the origin of young people who devote themselves to higher scientific pursuits, and to the future that opens before them. With the desire for education growing everywhere, the time has come to worry about this excessive desire for the highest subjects of learning not to shake the order of civil estates in some way, arousing in young minds the impulse to acquire luxurious knowledge of the nobility ... ".

By the 1940s, tuition fees became a serious regulatory instrument for the social composition of secondary and higher educational institutions. Introduced as early as 1819, it acquired exceptionally important political and social significance in the Nicholas era. At the initiative of the emperor, the issue of measures to restrict access to the gymnasium and universities for young people from taxable estates was again discussed. An increase in tuition fees in gymnasiums and universities was proposed as an effective restrictive measure.

In 1845, following an increase in tuition fees at universities and gymnasiums, on the initiative of Emperor Nicholas I, the issue of making it difficult for raznochintsy to enter the gymnasium was considered. In June 1845, on the memorandum of the Minister of Education on the payment for teaching, Nicholas I wrote: “I wonder if there are ways to make it difficult for raznochintsy to access the gymnasium?” The result of the minister's considerations was the highest approved order that appeared in the same year on the prohibition of admission to the gymnasium without certificates of discharge from the 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 district schools.

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

The preventive measures taken by Nicholas I and his government against the penetration of persons of a non-free state and raznochintsy into secondary and higher educational institutions basically achieved their goal. In 1833, approximately 78% of total number accepted in the gymnasium were representatives of the upper classes - the nobility, bureaucracy and merchants of the first guild, 2% - came from the clergy, and the rest - from the lower and middle strata 45 . Similar statistics were preserved in the second half of the 1940s. According to P. N. Milyukov, raznochintsy in gymnasiums and universities made up 20-30% at that time.

Building the system of secondary gymnasium education, Uvarov paid much attention to the 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 eighteen, and with a more significant baggage of knowledge. In addition, the seven-year program made it possible to thoroughly prepare young people for entering the university.

Alarming reports of 1848 from the countries of Western Europe, where students and young students 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-guide of Minister Uvarov to the trustees of educational districts of 1848, where the political aspect was brought to the fore: "So that the pernicious sophistication of criminal innovators could not penetrate into our numerous educational institutions," he considered it his "sacred duty" to turn attention of trustees to "the spirit of teaching in general in schools and, in particular, in universities", "trustworthiness of chiefs", "private educational institutions and boarding schools, especially those maintained by foreigners".

In the conditions of revolutionary events in Western Europe, the government paid close attention to self-sufficient (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 noble youth for university education and direct a certain part of it to enter military educational institutions who had difficulty typing. As a result, in April 1849, S.S. Uvarova was declared Secretary of State of the Imperial Chancellery A.S. Taneyev, the highest command to limit the number of self-employed students in each university to 300 people, "with a ban on the admission of students until the available number enters this legal size." This decision did not apply to medical students, since Uvarov convinced the tsar that with a catastrophic shortage of doctors, refusing admission to the medical faculty would further reduce the number of doctors that the military department was counting on. The minister succeeded in persuading the tsar to abandon the reduction of state students, proving to him their good intentions and desire to become teachers, so urgently needed in various parts of Russia.

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

Prince P. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, who had served as a comrade of the Minister of Education since 1842, was appointed to the post of head of the educational department. His appointment to this important post came as a complete surprise to him. On January 26, 1850, he presented Nicholas I with a note “on the need to transform teaching in our universities in such a way that henceforth all the provisions and conclusions of science would be based not on intellectual, but on religious truths, in connection with theology.” The sovereign liked this idea, and he hastened to appoint P. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov as a minister, whose post had been vacant for a long time. Acting in the spirit of the emperor's instructions, the MNE 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 universities was the exclusion of the state law of the European powers, "shocked by internal sedition and riots in their very foundations, due to the instability of the beginnings and the uncertainty of the conclusions." Since 1850, the same fate befell philosophy, 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 sophistication of the latest philosophical systems." Philosophy departments were closed, and teachers were transferred to others or fired. The reading of 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 very science of "philosophy" was expelled, were divided into two independent faculties: historical-philological and physical-mathematical. By a ministerial circular of November 5, 1850, pedagogical institutes at universities were abolished and departments of pedagogy were established instead. Two reasons for this step were noted in the ministerial document: firstly, the institutions did not give future teachers 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 leaders of students. The Ministry approved the proposal put forward earlier by the Buturlin Committee on the obligatory submission by professors of lithographic copies of their lectures. In January 1851, Shirinsky-Shikhmatov sent instructions to universities, intended for rectors and deans of faculties, "On strengthening supervision of university teaching." Each teacher had to submit to the dean a detailed course program indicating the literature used, which was subject to approval at the faculty meeting and the rector. In addition, the dean was obliged to monitor the exact correspondence of the professors' lectures to the programs and report the slightest deviation, "even if it was harmless", to the rector, who was exempted from teaching by instructions and concentrated on control functions. Professors' lectures were subject to proofreading in manuscript. The requirements for dissertations were increased in terms of the benevolence of their content, and the publicity of scientific 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 ban the invitation of 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. To do this, tuition fees were raised and the admission of young people of non-noble origin was limited.

In March 1850, the monopoly of the MNP on censorship of educational manuals was broken. Now they found it necessary, in addition to general censorship, to subject textbooks to "special, most careful and strict consideration", 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 writings, but also the "method of presenting them."

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

In addition to county schools intended for philistines and small merchants, in addition to parochial schools for peasants and theological schools, during the reign of Nicholas I, educational institutions appeared at each department. The War Department 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. Of course, with such a passion for estates, the uniformity proclaimed at the beginning of the reign, like many other things, was not achieved.

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

The Ministry of Public Education, in the context of the tightening 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 swept over our already weak and shaky education." But the education system turned out to be strong enough and withstood the blows of censorship.

After the death in 1853 of Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, his deputy A. S. Norov (1795-1869), the son of a Saratov landowner, provincial marshal of the nobility, a participant in the Battle of Borodino, an invalid, became the Minister of Education Patriotic War 1812, an educated man, with literary name, a person, according to contemporaries, "weak 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-minded 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. Even during the life of Emperor Nicholas I, the new minister tried to lift some restrictive measures against universities. In particular, he obtained the consent of the tsar to increase the enrollment of students by 50 people in the capital's universities and to celebrate the centenary of Moscow University, presented to the tsar "a plan for reforms 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 uprisings in the imperfection of the educational system.

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

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 of management of educational districts 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.

Class 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 young people of the upper classes to state gymnasiums and universities, believing that the "noble youth" would take their rightful place in civilian 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-noble estates led to the need to erect legislative barriers for these estates.

The preventive measures taken by Nicholas I and his government against the penetration of persons of a non-free state and raznochintsy 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, bureaucracy and merchants of the first guild, 2% came from the clergy, and the rest - from the lower and middle strata. Similar statistics were preserved in the second half of the 1940s. According to P. N. Milyukov, raznochintsy in gymnasiums and universities made up 20-30% at that time.



Nicholas 1 is one of the key figures in Russia in the 19th century. The reforms of Nicholas 1, for the most part, led Russia from a lagging power to progressive growth, both economically and in domestic policy. But not in everything. To find out why, read this article to the end.

Emperor Nicholas I

reforms

Despite the fact that Nicholas was the autocrat, his reforms were liberal in nature, such innovations were needed to stabilize the country.

Here are some of the most important innovations of Nicholas 1: financial (Kankrin reform), industrial, peasant, educational, censorship reform.

Reform Kankrin (1839-1843), named after the Minister of Finance under Nicholas 1, E.F. Kankrin.

Evstraty Frantsevich Kankrin

In the course of this transformation, banknotes were replaced with credit state tickets. According to this innovation, all trade transactions were to be made only in silver or gold. These changes have established a stable financial system up to the Crimean War (1853-1856).

industrial reform

One of the most important economic ideas of Nicholas 1. At the time when Nicholas became king, the state of industry was lagging behind compared to the west, where it ended industrial Revolution. Most of the materials Russia purchased in Europe. By the end of the reign of Nicholas, the situation had changed greatly. For the first time in Russia, technically not lagging behind and competitive manufactory was formed.

Pavel Dmitrievich Kiselev

• Nicholas 1 also held the first railway in Russia (1837).
• Opened the first technological institute in St. Petersburg (1831).
• Landownership (1837-1841).

The peasant question also called the change Kiselyov (Minister of State Property) helped to alleviate the situation of Russia's state peasants. It was forbidden for landlords to exile a peasant to hard labor, to use physical force against him, it was forbidden to separate him from his family, the peasant received freedom of movement, peasant self-government was created, peasants could redeem themselves, later they could also buy land from the landowner, increase schools, hospitals.

For violation of the laws, the landowner was fined or could be imprisoned. Because of these changes, the number of serfs decreased, but not significantly. The position of the state peasants also improved, now each state peasant was given his own allotments.

educational reform

In the course of the landlord transformation, a very large number of peasant schools were created. A program of mass peasant education was developed; in 1838, there were about 2,552 schools with 112,000 students. Before the educational transformation, there were 60 schools with 1,500 students. In 1856, a large number of schools and universities were opened, and a system of vocational and secondary education was formed in the country.

But this idea of ​​Nicholas was still less successful than the previous ones, this is due to the fact that Nicholas 1 continued the formation of class education, the main subjects were Latin and Greek, the rest of the subjects went by the wayside.

These changes served the universities very badly: education became paid, teachers and rectors were chosen by the Ministry of Public Education, compulsory subjects were - church history and I, church law, theology.

Universities were made dependent on the trustees of educational districts, their self-government was eliminated. Students were put in a punishment cell for offenses, and a uniform for students was also introduced so that it was convenient for the commandants of the dormitories to follow them.

Censorship reform (1826, 1828)

This transformation greatly influenced the culture and internal politics of the state. Nicholas suppressed the slightest manifestation of freethinking. The censorship reform, or as it is also called the iron reform, was very cruel; in fact, all articles, works, etc. that somehow affected politics fell under the ban.

The tightening of censorship was associated with the European revolutions that raged throughout Europe, in order not to aggravate his situation, Nicholas created a cast-iron reform. All popular magazines at that time were banned, and plays were also banned. These reforms are also known for the large number of poets' references to penal servitude (Polezhaev, Lermontov, Turgenev, Pushkin, etc.).

The result and nature of the transformations of Nicholas 1 is very controversial. Despite the most severe censorship, he managed to retain power and improve the economic situation. But despite all this, the desire of Nicholas 1 to centralize power killed his reformist ideas.

You must understand that here we have sketched out a schematic plan for the reforms of Nicholas 1. All complete information is in.

graduate work

1.3 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 uprisings in the imperfection of the educational system. Thoughts about the “perverseness” of domestic education were repeatedly expressed by the Minister of Public Education, Admiral A.S. Shishkov, who was in this position in 1824-1828. He believed that public education should be national in content and help strengthen the autocracy. Chernozub S. P. Reform of higher education: legacy and dictate of traditions // Social Sciences and modernity. 1998, no. 2.

Your views A.C. Shishkov also conducted through the Committee for the Arrangement of Educational Institutions, which worked from 1826 to 1835. The committee prepared: the charter of gymnasiums and schools of the county and parish (1828), the charter of St. Vladimir University in Kyiv (1833), the regulation on educational districts (1835) and the General charter of the imperial Russian universities (1835) .

The development of the charter of gymnasiums proceeded in sharp disagreements on the question of the nature of 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” Uvarov P.Yu. Character traits university culture // From the history of universities in Europe XIII-XV centuries. Voronezh, 1984. ; others (Shishkov), on the contrary, allowed a certain independence of the gymnasium course, as “providing methods of decent noble education to 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, put their 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 the development of gymnasiums: 1) the duality of the type of secondary school in the form of the parallel existence of classical gymnasiums preparing for universities and special schools providing a complete education; 2) the bifurcation of the senior classes of the gymnasium, branching education along the same two lines; and 3) a single type of gymnasium with a narrow classical program (without Greek), supplemented by the 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 charter put forward the goal for the gymnasiums, on the one hand, to prepare for listening to university lectures, on the other hand, "to provide methods of decent education." 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, gymnasiums were divided into gymnasiums with and without Greek. At the head of the gymnasium, as before, was the director, who was assisted by an inspector, elected from among the senior teachers, to monitor order in the classrooms and housekeeping in boarding schools. The title of honorary trustee was also established, for general supervision with the director, of the gymnasium and boarding school. In addition, pedagogical councils were formed, whose task was to discuss educational issues in the gymnasium and taking measures to improve them. Ancient languages ​​and mathematics were recognized as the main subjects. The study of the Latin language and ancient literature as knowledge, accustoming the mind "to attentiveness, diligence, modesty and thoroughness" was given most of the study time - 39 hours. The number of lessons on the Law of God and the native language increased. Of the remaining subjects remained: geography, and statistics, history, physics, new languages, calligraphy and drawing. Charter of gymnasiums and schools in 1828 until the 60s. has not been revised. However, it was amended by separate orders of the government. So, in 1839, a special “Regulations on real classes at educational institutions of the Ministry of Public Education” was published, and in 1849-1852. Significant changes were made to the curricula of the gymnasiums.

Further transformations of the system of public education of the 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. Borozdin I. N. Universities of Russia in the first half of the 19th century // History of Russia in the 19th century. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1907.

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

By the mid 30s. 19th century Russia had six universities: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Kharkov, Kyiv (St. Vladimir) and Derpt. The life of the first four of them was regulated by a charter prepared by the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions, and approved by the highest on July 26, 1835. Two other universities, Derpt and Kyiv, functioned on the basis of charters 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 (in contrast 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, the rector of the university, 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 help from the university council on purely academic matters. However, this did not happen in practice. The new centralized system of management of educational districts led to the restriction of university autonomy and academic freedom Borozdin IN Universities of Russia in the first half of the 19th century / / History of Russia in the 19th century. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1907. . 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 first duty of the trustee was to see strictly that the university staff faithfully performed their duties, and to watch over their ability to work, morality and devotion. If the teacher did not meet these requirements, the trustee could reprimand him or dismiss him if he considered 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 board of the university, which, in addition to him, included the rector, deans of the faculties and the inspector. The board of the university council was entrusted with the care of finances, materiel, staff and office, as well as the function of maintaining order at the university. The former university judiciary was abolished and transferred to the local judiciary. And, finally, now the trustee, and not the rector, appointed an inspector to supervise the students, and not from among the professors, as was the case before, but from among the officials.

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

Professors who served for 25 years were awarded the title of Honored Professor and received a pension in the amount of their full salary. 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 he received a pension in addition to his full salary for five years.

Academic rights such as the distribution of courses, scholarships, discussion of textbooks and teaching methods were retained by the professorial colleges. The university council has fully retained the functions of overseeing its own academic life: professors retained the privilege of duty-free and uncensored importation of materials for scientific studies, the right to independently censor dissertations and scientific works of teachers, as well as university publications printed at public expense, etc. the council continued to elect from among its professors the rector and deans for a four-year term, with their subsequent approval 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. Professors were released from administrative duties, which, as a rule, were a burden to them and were performed by them unimportantly. 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 law for all students of the Greek-Russian faith.

Scholars acknowledged that the University Charter of 1835 was a step back in terms of university autonomy compared to the Charter of 1804, but was more liberal than the charters of German universities, and even more so of France, where universities were generally not recognized by scientific communities. Petrov F.A. Russian universities in the first half of the nineteenth century. Formation of the system of university education. M., 2001.

Along with the charter of 1835, the states of the universities were also approved. The Moscow, Kazan, Kharkov and Kyiv 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. Petersburg University did not have a medical faculty, but in 1856 another one 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 lecturers of foreign languages, a drawing teacher and a teacher of arts (fencing, music, dance, riding ride). A somewhat smaller staff was allocated for the St. Petersburg and Kyiv (where also initially there was no medical faculty) universities. Ordinary and extraordinary professors were required to have a Doctor of Science degree, adjuncts - a Master of Science degree.

Legislation tsarist Russia included university teachers in the general system of official hierarchy. They were endowed with the corresponding class ranks and wore uniforms. The rector relied on the rank of V class, the ordinary professor - class VII, the extraordinary professor, adjunct and prosector - class VIII. The presence of a scientific degree upon entering the civil service also gave the right to ranks: a doctor of science received the rank of V class, a master - IX, a candidate - X class. By the end of their teaching career, many professors rose to the rank of actual Privy Councilor, and some even reached the rank of Privy Councilor. Acquisition of scholarship opened for those who did not have a noble rank, the path to it. Legislatively, the rank of the IX class gave personal, and the IV class (actual state councilor) hereditary nobility. Petrov F.A. Russian universities in the first half of the nineteenth century. Formation of the system of university education. M., 2001.

The Russian students of the second half of the 1930s, as before, were divided 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 paid their own fees for their education, after which they could freely find employment. State-owned students lived in boarding houses at the university on full state support and were obliged to work for the corresponding assignment for six years after completing the course. The students were supposed to wear dark blue uniforms decorated with gold buttons and gold-embroidered buttonholes, a cocked hat and a sword were supposed to go with it. Under the statutes of 1804, students were responsible for their conduct to professor-inspectors and an independent university court. For Nicholas I, this system seemed insufficient. In the charter of 1835, new rules for the conduct of students and supervision of them were legalized. Now the chief inspector of each university, a high-ranking and highly paid official, was called to his post from civil or military service and had to, relying on the staff of his deputies, control the piety, diligence and cleanliness of students. Eymontova R. G. Russian universities on the verge of two eras: from serf Russia to capitalist Russia. M., 1985. book-forum.iuoop7

At the end of the university, some of the students were awarded the title of a real student and the rank of the XII class. 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 the state or military service, to ask 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 highly qualified teaching staff - a difficult issue for higher education. Initially, universities replenished 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. Golitsyn, attempts were made to train professors abroad from among the Russian students sent there, but this did not reduce the need for Russian universities in qualified teaching staff. A breakthrough in this direction was made with the opening in 1827 of the Professorial Institute at Dorpat University. Only two graduates of the Professors' 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 trainees from each university) annually 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, until 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 of 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 national economy of the country. Eymontova R. G. Russian universities on the verge of two eras: from serf Russia to capitalist Russia. M., 1985. book-forum.iuoop7

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

Contribution to the development of Russia's first Russian emperor, the great reformer - Peter I

Peter sought to ensure that all the nobility considered the "sovereign service" their honorary right, their vocation, to skillfully rule the country and command the troops. To do this, it was necessary, first of all, to spread education among the nobles ...

Foreign policy Russia XIX century

After the death of Alexander I, the interregnum and the cruel massacre of the rebellious Decembrists, Alexander's brother Nicholas I ascended the Russian throne ...

In the first years of his reign, Nicholas I did not attach of great importance peasant question. Gradually, however, the tsar and his inner circle came to the conclusion that serfdom was fraught with the danger of a new Pugachevism ...

State administration under Nicholas I

The regional administration under Nicholas I remained on the same basis, even in its former form; it was not complicated, like the central one; only the management of the estates, the nobility, underwent some changes. As we know...

Nobility in the Russian Empire

The beginning of the reign of Nicholas I was marked by an important event in the social and political life Russia - the uprising of the Decembrists on Senate Square on December 14, 1825. The main reason for this performance was...

Changes in public and state system in late XIX century in Japan

Traditionally, education in Japan was quite widespread even before the Meiji era. The literacy rate of the Japanese population was quite high...

Intervention of Poland and Sweden in Russia. Industrialization and collectivization. The collapse of the USSR

Nicholas I (Romanov Nikolai Pavlovich) (06/06/07/1796 - 02/02/02/1855), Emperor of All Russia (1825 - 1855). The third son of Emperor Paul I. He ascended the throne after the sudden death of his brother Alexander 1...

Peasant reforms 1860-1890

Alexander II, at the beginning of his reign, discovered restrictive measures in relation to educational institutions. Teaching at universities became more free, they became available to volunteers for women and men. In 1861...

Liberal and conservative trends in the domestic policy of Alexander I

In 1803 -1804. public education was reformed. According to the decree of January 26, 1803 "On the organization of schools", the principles of classlessness, free education at its lower levels were put at the heart of the education system ...

Navigation and Pushkar schools of Peter I

Thanks to the activities of Peter I, Russia already at the beginning of the 18th century was a vast multinational state, where absolutism was established. The strengthening of Russia's role on the world stage was facilitated by its military might...

reforms government controlled under Alexander I

In 1803, a new regulation was issued on the structure of educational institutions, which introduced new principles into the education system: 1. non-estate educational institutions; 2. free education at its lower levels; 3. continuity of curricula...

Reforms P.A. Stolypin

Reforms of Peter I

The army and navy needed qualified specialists. Therefore, Peter paid great attention to their preparation...

Russian political reforms of the 15th-18th centuries

Serious changes are taking place in the education system. Even before the Zemstvo reform after the approval State Council On June 18, 1863, the Emperor approved the new University Charter...

Russia under Nicholas I deepening crisis of the feudal-serf system

The case of the Decembrists was of great importance for the young sovereign, as well as for the entire state. It had a huge impact on the entire government activities of Emperor Nicholas and greatly affected the public mood of his ...

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

The rescript formed a special Committee for the organization of educational institutions, which was instructed to immediately introduce uniformity in the educational system.

Nicholas I was well aware that the fight against revolutionary and liberal ideas had to be started from schools and universities. The education system was returned to the class character.

The general structure of the education system remained the same, but all schools were removed from subordination to universities and transferred to direct subordination to the administration of the educational district, i.e. Ministry of Public Education. The teaching in the gymnasiums was greatly changed. The main subjects were Greek and latin languages. "Real" subjects were allowed to be taught as extras. Gymnasiums were considered only as a stepping stone to the university; thus, taking into account the class character of gymnasiums, access to higher education was practically closed to raznochintsy.

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' trips abroad were drastically curtailed, student enrollment restricted, and tuition fees introduced. Theology, church history and church law became obligatory for all faculties. Rectors and deans had to ensure that in the content of the programs, mandatory presented by professors before reading courses, "nothing was hidden that disagreed with the teachings of the Orthodox Church or with the form of government and the spirit of public institutions". Philosophy was excluded from the curricula, recognized - "with the modern reprehensible development of this science by German scientists" - unnecessary. Reading courses in logic and psychology were entrusted to professors of theology.

Measures were taken to strengthen discipline among students; to overt and covert supervision of them. The students were dressed in uniform, even their hairstyle was regulated.

In 1839, real departments were opened in some gymnasiums and district schools, where industrial and natural history, chemistry, commodity science, accounting, accounting, commercial jurisprudence and mechanics were taught. Raznochintsy were accepted there; the task was to keep the lower classes of the state in proportion to their civil life and encourage them to confine themselves to county schools, not allowing them to enter the gymnasium and universities. But objectively, this meant a departure from the dominance of classical education towards the real needs of society.

Update on education:

Analysis of the results of work on the formation of grapho-motor skills
The purpose of the control experiment is to evaluate the effectiveness of the correctional and pedagogical work on the formation of graphic-motor skills in preschoolers with OHP. The control experiment was carried out at the end of April 2011. The implementation of the methodology for assessing the graph-motor function according to M.M. Armless at de...

Clinical-psychological-pedagogical features of children with visual impairments
Lyudmila Ivanovna Solntseva in her research notes that the observation of children school age visually impaired and an analysis of their mental development, proceeding under the active influence of the external environment, show a rather diverse and complex picture of the mental status of modern ...

Individual work with students on the choice of profession
In order to increase the activity of the student himself in the search for a vocation, to assist him in self-determination, it is necessary to carry out corrective individual work. A methodologist can act as a consultant, he recommends the student the scope of work, corrects his actions, is connected ...

The policy of the government of Nicholas I in the field of education and the press is quite 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, according to S.S. 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 infected with freethinking. The ratio of benefits and disadvantages of education has been a subject of discussion in society as well. N.M. Karamzin, A.S. Shishkov, A.S. Pushkin and others expressed their thoughts about it to the monarch.
In May 1826, Nicholas I established the Committee for the Arrangement of Educational Institutions. He was tasked with analyzing educational charters and developing new ones. Approved in 1827, the program of A.S. Shishkov 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 fundamentals 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 "dumb-headed performers" of the reign of Nicholas. Sergei Semenovich was an educated man, known for his literary tastes. Uvarov began his service 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 a patron of science. Under the patronage of Runich, Sergei Semenovich spoke in defense of the professors dismissed from St. Petersburg University. From 1818 until his death (1855) Uvarov was president Russian Academy Sciences.
The speech of the Decembrists, its failure forced many to rethink their attitude to power. Uvarov belonged to 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 enable her to influence political course government. Uvarov did not recognize the legitimacy of the revolution, condemned the military coup as a means
changes to the existing system. He saw salvation for Russia in the choice of an 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. His concept was called in historiography the "theory of official nationality". Uvarov outlined ideas that were well known to Russian society. Russia, in the view of the minister, is a country that has a different path of development from Europe. European countries are shaking civil wars because the society, based on its 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, propaganda of the idea of ​​consent between the authorities and the people should be at the center schooling. This idea unites the people and the autocracy. The people believe in the king, the king takes care of the people. Both parties must be aware of their obligations 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 journals.
In 1835, on the initiative of Uvarov, a new regulation on educational districts was introduced. According to it, trustees did not become representatives of the interests of the educational district before the supreme authority, as it was before, but controllers and administrators. Henceforth, the trustee had to live in the center of the district and manage all the educational institutions in it. The proportion of professional military among the trustees of the districts 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 stricter subordination to the trustees. The university corporation retained the right to choose the rector, dean, professors, but cases of their approval in the ministry became more frequent. The university court was destroyed. student life strictly regulated. The positions of student inspector and his assistants were introduced.
And yet, there is no reason to say that the government of Nicholas I suppressed education in the country. It desired to control and direct 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
of 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 technological backwardness of the country from Europe. He considered technical education one of the important means for this. The technological institute opened in 1828 in St. Petersburg was called upon to become the coordinator of the educational program in this area.
In addition, in 1840, at some Russian universities, including Kazan, chamber ranks were opened to train legally and economically competent managers for industry. At the same time, it was widely practiced to read public lectures by university professors. So in the 1850s, the course of lectures by the 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. Yes, and the Institute of Technology provided knowledge on the organization of mainly light industries, and the country needed technological education for 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 latest agricultural sciences through a special "Agricultural Newspaper", subsidized translations and publications of foreign literature on agronomy. In 1848, the Gorygo-Retsk agricultural school was transformed into a higher agronomic educational institution. The government sent the most capable university graduates for internships abroad to train agricultural teachers.
In general, government actions in the field of education have led to 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 followed the same logic in its censorship policy. In 1826, a censorship charter proposed by A.S. Shishkov was published. 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 rigid censorship charter. In 1828, a new, more relaxed version appeared. The Main 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 the Interior. Local committees, chaired by the trustees of the 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 subjected to inspection by the Medical Academy. III Department did not leave without attention not a single forbidden work, not a single author who was seen in sedition. In the 1830s A number of socio-political publications were closed: among them, "Europeets" by P.V. Kire^askog, "Moscow Telegraph" by N.A. Literary newspaper "A.A. Delvig. At the same time, the government encouraged the publication of scientific and technical journals, Scientific Notes. Until 1848, universities had the opportunity to correspond with foreign scientists.
Revolutionary events in Europe 1848-1849. frightened the government so much that it took a number of urgent measures to protect the Russian society from "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 brink 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 interrupted. 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 formidable revolutionary events. Echoes of social upheaval in neighboring countries echoed in the public life of the country. The desire to prevent a revolutionary development of events determined the government's policy and its changes.
At the stage of 1826-1848. the government considered reforms 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 modern
promotion to the state apparatus; legislation is being developed; financial reform is carried out, education is encouraged.
However, the scope of the revolutionary events of 1848-1849. in Europe contributed to the strengthening of protective-reactionary tendencies in the government. Russia is isolated from the European community politically and culturally.