Administrative Perestroika and Rewriting History: The Dilemma of Glasnost in Soviet Education
| Date | 01 April 1991 |
| Published date | 01 April 1991 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002470 |
| Author | William B. Husband |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Administrative Perestroika and
Rewriting History:
The Dilemma of Glasnost
in Soviet Education
William B. Husband
Oregon
State
University,
USA
Glasnost in
Soviet
Education
7
The dogmatic structure of our [presentation of history] and its corresponding methodology
are the background for the development of socio-political skepticism, conformity, time-serving,
and hypocrisy ... In order to realize the full potential of a moral education ... the teacher
of history must be broadly prepared and diversely educated ... [but] our councils on
(pedagogical) methodology in the majority of cases [prevent this because they] have but an
ivory tower and even artificial character[1].
Only a few years have passed since such a far-reaching public indictment of
the falsified history curriculum
in
the USSR and fundamental critique of Soviet
institutions of educational administration would
have
occasioned notice globally.
By the time it appeared
in
the March
1989
issue of
the
prestigious
Voprosy Istorii
(Problems of
History),
however, it took the form of
a
letter to the editor from
a provincial secondary school teacher and was relegated to the journal's back
pages.
What conclusions should one draw? On one level, the general political
situation in the Soviet Union since 1985 suggests that the onset of
glasnost
(openness of discussion and criticism) made possible an outpouring of grievances
against the status quo without providing solutions to the most pressing problems
in the form of
perestroika
(restructuring). This ultimately undermined the
credibility of reform as a
process.
Therefore, by the time of the 28th Communist
Party Congress of July 1990, the absence of a national consensus (and an
economic crisis of dramatic proportions) influenced Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev to adopt a less adventurous course, a policy that became by stages
more repressive. Such an interpretation predominated in the western media
throughout the first third of 1991. No single part of this explanation is a
misrepresentation, but it suffers from key errors of omission.
When one examines a single issue in depth
—
in this case the formulation of
the version of Soviet history to be taught in secondary schools and the impact
of
this
upon educational administration
—
it becomes evident
how the
journalistic
Author's
Note:
Although it was not my intention in writing an article on educational administration
to make political predictions, the events of this summer (the attempted coup in the USSR) have
vindicated the chief points made in the essay: that the struggle between reform and conservatism
was and is an ongoing process; that even reformist teachers were not willing to abandon orthodoxy
completely; and especially that reform had proceeded too far for a simple return to the previous
system to be a realistic scenario. As the article states in its conclusion, it presents the situation
as of spring 1991. What has transpired since, in my view, in no way undermines the essay, but in
fact reinforces my reading of the evidence.
Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 29 No. 4, 1991,
pp.
7-16. © MCB University Press.
0957-8234
To continue reading
Request your trial