A meaningful analysis of the updated Federal State Educational Standards and the problem of implementing their requirements in the work of a teacher

Mansurova Svetlana Efimovna ORCID: 0000-0001-7478-8492 Head of Program Design Department, Academy of the Ministry of Education of Russia 125212, Russia, Moscow, ul. , Moscow,,, 8, bldg. 2a, of. 301 s.mansurova@apkpro.ru

In 2021-2022, the FSES of primary, basic and secondary general education (hereinafter referred to as the FSES) were approved and introduced, which are interpreted as updated, not new, since the methodological basis of the FSES and their structure remained the same. The main purpose of the introduction of the updated FSES is the formation of a unified educational space of general education through the standardization of its processes, requirements, conditions ^[1].

Let us present a meaningful analysis of the updated FSES, the leading basis of which is the methodological basis of the document ^[8]. The methodological basis of the FGOS is a system-activity approach, which in the updated FGOS becomes more applied. Thus, a comparative lexical analysis of two generations of the FGOS, presented on the example of the FGOS of basic general education, (Table.1) shows a visible difference in the number of concepts associated with the manifestation of the system-activity approach: in the updated FGOS, the frequency of occurrence of these concepts is much higher.

Table 1.

Lexical analysis of FGOS LLC

The system-activity approach leading in educational activity focuses on the results of mastering the basic educational programs, therefore, one of the markers of the manifestation of this approach is the formulation of requirements for results. The analysis of the updated FSES shows a change in wording in terms of requirements for subject and meta-subject results: these formulations acquire an activity form, which can be judged by their verbal vocabulary, for example, "use", "recognize", "characterize", "explain", "solve", "calculate", "describe". Particularly noteworthy are the verbal formulations of the subject results, which in the previous edition of the FGOS were expressed with the help of nouns ("formation", "understanding", "use", etc.). Lexical analysis of the requirements for learning outcomes allows us to conclude that the FGOS is aimed at forming a student who is able, and not knowledgeable, priority for the FGOS of the former generations.

Another feature of the training requirements is their detailing. Moreover, if the subject results are only concretized, then the meta-subject and personal ones are not just concretized, but also systematized. Thus, metasubject results are systematized into three blocks, of which a block of universal educational cognitive actions is associated with the subject results, including concretized requirements for basic logical, basic research actions, work with information. The concretized requirements of the other two blocks – universal communicative and universal regulatory actions are largely related to personal results, systematized by the spheres of education. Separately, let's say that the innovation of the FGOS is the description of personal and meta-subject results from the standpoint of soft skills or competencies of the XXI century, that is, a wide range of general skills is put at the forefront ^[5], which correlates with the focus of the FGOS on the formation of functional literacy.

Let's say that the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard receive their maximum specification in Federal basic general education programs (FOOPOO, FOOPOO, FOOPOO), and in them – in federal work programs on academic subjects. They present subject content and subject results by years of study, and meta-subject and personal results for education levels.

Thus, the updated FSES and the documents created on their basis give a clear answer to the question "What to teach".

The specified requirements for learning outcomes serve as the basis for approaches to their assessment. The analysis of the FGOS gives grounds to conclude that the assessment should be carried out on the basis of system-activity, level-based and integrated approaches. The system-activity approach connects assessment with the ability of students to solve educational-cognitive and educational-practical tasks, as well as tasks for functional literacy. The tiered approach is the main one for distinguishing the levels of achievement of the planned results – basic, above and below the basic. The complexity of the approach is manifested in the fact that the assessment takes place both in relation to the results – subject and meta-subject, and on the basis of the use of various methods and forms of assessment.

The concretization of subject and meta-subject learning outcomes makes them potentially measurable and translates into the rank of a criterion for the effectiveness of the school team. Thus, the requirements for learning outcomes and their planning are a guideline for both teachers and heads of educational organizations. The Federal State Educational Standard requires managers to monitor the achievement (or non-achievement) of learning outcomes through an in-school control system and thereby move from knowledge control to data-based management. The requirements for subject and meta-subject learning outcomes act as a guideline in the design of control and measuring materials for both in-school control and for independent procedures for assessing the quality of education (GIA, VPR, NICO, etc.).

The methodology of the system-activity approach aims at the formation of learning outcomes in unity with approaches to the construction of educational activities.  Its structure includes a set of various components (motive, goal, educational task, educational operations, control and self-control) ^[13], and the organization of educational activities for solving various educational tasks is at the forefront. Thus, at first glance, the question "How to teach?" the updated FGOS meet the same requirements as the FGOS of the previous edition, however, the above-presented substantive analysis of the requirements for the results of mastering the basic educational programs indicates an increased focus of the FGOS on organizing (for the teacher) and mastering (for the student) educational activities according to the methodology of the system-activity approach.

In parentheses, let's say that the idea of educational activity as the basis of the educational process is refracted in many documents, one of which is the SanPiN ^[9] (its last edition was approved in January 2021, i.e. before the introduction of the updated FSES). The SanPiN is a normative document that works on the basis of compliance with the principle of health saving, and, unlike many developed methodological recommendations for conducting a modern lesson, it is mandatory for execution. The SanPiN indicates the number of types of educational activities in the classroom (primary school – 3-7, primary, high school – 5-7), the duration of one type of educational activity (primary school – 5-7 min., primary, high school – 7-10 min.), the density of the lesson, i.e. the ratio of time spent on educational activities to the total time (primary school – 60-80% min., primary, high school – 70-90%). According to the purpose of the SanPiN, violation of these standards can be interpreted from the standpoint of adverse consequences for the health of students. Indeed, physiologists (A.G.Khripkova, M.M. Bezrukikh, V.D. Sonkin, etc.) have shown that intensive and/or monotonous mental activity, which is considered very energy-consuming, negatively affects health, since it leads to psychoemotional overstrain and exhaustion of the nervous system ^[2]. The standards of the SanPiN can be briefly interpreted as follows: educational activity should occupy most of the lesson, it should be diverse, and its individual types should be short–lived.

The improvement of professional competencies of teachers is necessary at any time, and especially in the situation of updating the regulatory framework of general education. For a number of years, specialists of the FSAOU DPO "Academy of the Ministry of Education of Russia" have been monitoring the professional development of teachers studying at advanced training courses. Monitoring takes place in different formats – in the format of questionnaires, analysis of the performance of training tasks, questions addressed to the hotline, activity of participation in training. One of the areas of monitoring is the study of patterns of professional behavior of teachers – individual patterns of behavior ^[11] based on the developed competence-oriented tasks ^[10]. These tasks revealed the peculiarities of the teacher's behavior in different professional situations: when planning training sessions, forming motivation for learning, organizing educational activities, forming learning outcomes, evaluating educational achievements.

The monitoring study was conducted on a significant sample: several hundred thousand teachers from different regions of Russia participated in it. It is revealed that the leading deficit competence of a teacher is the willingness and ability to carry out educational activities based on the methodology of the system-activity approach, the implementation of which is largely associated with the formation of a complex of universal educational actions (meta-subject learning outcomes). A deficit in this area was identified in more than 63% of teachers. So, to the question of how and when metasubject results should be formed, teachers answer – "in metasubject lessons", implying that special educational conditions are required for the formation of these results. In the literature, you can find definitions of a meta–subject lesson, here is one of them: "a meta-subject lesson is a lesson in which the main content of learning is universal (meta-subject) types of educational activities" ^[14]. At the same time, the division of lessons into subject and meta-subject fundamentally contradicts the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard. This conclusion can be made based on the analysis of any of the formulations of metasubject results, for example, "to identify and characterize the essential features of objects (phenomena)" ^[12]. Obviously, both this and other skills should be formed not in special lessons, but in all lessons in different academic subjects. We state that at the beginning of 2023, this setting was documented: "meta-subject results are formed and evaluated only as an integral element of the educational task performed on the subject" ^[7].

Analysis of the results of monitoring the trainees of advanced training courses has shown that for many teachers, the goal of training is the process, not the result, that they rely on a reproductive approach that is catastrophically lagging behind the cognitive conditions of the time, that meta-subject and personal results for them are not the planned result of subject training. A significant number of teachers continue to be translators of knowledge, supporters of the idea of the dominant role of the teacher, adherents of methods of frontal learning. The explanation of these conclusions is obvious: in comparison with the system-activity approach, the knowledge approach is relatively easy to implement and does not require a teacher to have a high level of professional subject and methodological competencies of the teacher.

Against the background of what has been said, we are forced to identify some risks of regulatory innovations in the field of rigidly defined requirements for subject content and subject results. The designated strict subject framework is interpreted by the teacher from the standpoint of the priority of subject results over others, the emphasis on differentiated objectivity negates the requirement for the formation of functional literacy, subject knowledge, in conditions when the school's monopoly on information is lost, provokes conflict: the refusal of students to perceive knowledge from textbooks on an alternative basis, trust them as the only true.

Why teach? That is, what is the purpose of education? It is obvious that the purpose of education is to obtain the full range of planned educational results. However, the analysis of their hierarchy in the Federal State Educational Standard shows that the emphasis is placed on meta-subject and personal results, which are stated before the subject ones.

The personal results of mastering the basic educational programs are the most significant and at the same time the most difficult to form. Unlike the FGOS of the previous generation, in the updated FGOS, personal results are systematized according to the areas of education – civil, patriotic, spiritual and moral, aesthetic, physical, labor, environmental, the value of scientific knowledge ^[10]. The idea of the unity of educational and educational activities, the interrelation of requirements for the results of educational activities of an educational organization and personal results formed in educational subjects, each of which has a serious educational potential, runs through the thread. Federal work programs in all academic subjects orient teachers to the formation of results in the field of education: the programs present planned personal results, concretized for all areas of education.

The classics of Russian psychological science show that the most important means of personality development is a system-activity approach ^[4], i.e. a variety of educational activities – both cognitive, regulatory, and communicative, deficits in the field of organization of which we have identified during monitoring studies. Most teachers have subject knowledge in the foreground, they do not consider it important to form students' value attitude to the facts, processes, events studied, readiness to express and defend their opinions ^[3].  We draw this conclusion on the basis of a common explanation of the reasons for the lack of activities aimed at personal results: "I don't have time for this" and associate it with the deficits of value-semantic competencies of teachers.

Summing up a meaningful analysis of the requirements for the results of mastering the basic educational programs presented in the updated FSES, we conclude that these requirements are systematized, concretized, interrelated, set in an activity form, and holistically presented to the results of training and education. The requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard are focused on the formation of a unified educational space, since they provide clear answers to the systemic questions "what to teach?", "how to teach?", "why to teach?". In fact, the updated FGOS are practical tools for work, and the success of its application depends on the professional competencies of teaching staff and management personnel.

The system-forming condition for the implementation of the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard for learning outcomes is a system-activity approach, which should be leading in the educational activity of the teacher, but is deficient. The application of the research results is associated with the definition of directions and forms of professional development of teachers in the context of changes in the regulatory framework. The problem of developing professional competencies of teachers in the field of implementing the requirements of the updated Federal State Educational Standards for the formation of learning outcomes can be solved in different formats. In our opinion, mass refresher courses in their classical version are not the optimal model for solving this problem. One of the promising training formats is the training of school teams in the conditions of an educational organization ^[6], such a format allows teachers and managers to unite to solve a single task. Promising training formats that cover actual professional deficits. This is a practice-oriented and personalized training, which can be carried out in the form of internships, trainings, individual educational routes.

Summing up, let's say that the updated Federal State Educational Standards set the focus on the formation of a unified educational space in the Russian Federation, and its key factor is the concretized and systematized requirements for learning outcomes. Thus, overcoming the deficits of professional competencies, which are a barrier to the implementation of the requirements of the updated FSES, is one of the leading conditions for the formation of a unified educational space.