Policy of the communist party regarding the regulation of the everyday life of higher pedagogical institutions in the 1920s-1960s: idealization and realization

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Policy of the communist party regarding the regulation of the everyday life of higher pedagogical institutions in the 1920s -1960s: idealization and realization

Lukyanenko Oleksandr Viktorovych Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Cultural Studies, Poltava V.G. Korolenko National Pedagogical University

Abstract

The system of teacher training, which barely got on its feet during the revolution of 1917-1921, was feverish with reforms. The only thing that was radically different was, of course, that the higher school became the vanguard of the communists' ideological struggle, first against the Nepmans, and then against the capitalists of the “decaying West”. The state declared that it had started a struggle for the consciousness of citizens through culture and education. The internal world of institutions was reshaped in accordance with the demands of the young socialist state. Party and Soviet leaders considered it their duty to intervene in the life process of state pedagogical institutes (hereinafter referred to as SPI). On the other hand, the higher education school, suffering from such interference, felt like a forge of advanced ideological cadres. The life attitudes of a Soviet citizen were polished precisely within the walls of the school. This sphere of activity of institutions was highlighted in reports and recommendations of party bodies. However, issues of life outside ideology remain white spots.

The micro-environment of life activities of educational teams of the Ukrainian SSR was studied. It was characterized by the impoverished state in which the universities found themselves in the 1920s after the civil war and tried to overcome it for 50 years with varying success. The state allocated significant funds, which, however, could not satisfy all the needs of SPIs. There were problems with providing fuel, electricity, organization of water supply and drainage, there was a lack of building materials for repair work by students. The campaign to vacate the premises of the former schools in the 1930s struck a blow, when institutes lost inhabited areas, receiving nothing in return, or having buildings unfit for existence. In the post-war country, the problem of organizing the work space has become even more acute. It was solved by the efforts of students and teachers on Saturdays, special Sundays, reconstruction weeks, through self-commitments for the manufacture of furniture, electrification, etc. The state was not able to help all institutions with finances or resources. Improvements in this area took place in the second half of the 1950s. Educational institutions were able to rebuild the lost areas, manufacture or purchase furniture, equipment, reagents, textbooks, etc.

Keywords: everyday life, educators, higher pedagogical school, CPSU, Ukrainian SSR, policy, politics, everyday life, space.

Анотація

Політика комуністичної партії з регулювання будення закладів вищої педагогічної освіти 1920-х - 1960-х років: ідеалізація та реалізація

Лук'яненко Олександр Вікторович доктор історичних наук, професор, завідувач кафедри культурології, Полтавський національний педагогічний університет імені В.Г. Короленка

Систему підготовки учителів, яка ледь зіп'ялася на ноги у часи революції 1917-1921 рр., лихоманило від реформ. Кардинально відмінним було, певне, лише те, що вища школа стала передовою ідеологічної боротьби комуністів спочатку проти непманів, а потім і капіталістів «загниваючого Заходу». Держава заявила про те, що почала протистояння за свідомість громадян через культуру та освіту. Внутрішній світ закладів перекроювався відповідно до запитів молодої соціалістичної держави. У процес життя державні педагогічні інститути (далі - ДПТ) чи не за обов'язок вважали втрутитися партійні та радянські керівники. З іншого боку, вища педшкола, страждаючи від такого втручання, відчувала себе кузнею передових ідеологічних кадрів. Життєві установки радянського громадянина шліфувалися саме у стінах школи. Ця сфера діяльності закладів висвітлювалася у звітах та рекомендаціях партійних органів. Однак, білими плямами лишаються питання життя поза ідеологією.

Досліджено мікросередовище життєдіяльності освітянських колективів УРСР. Воно характеризувалося злиденним станом, у якому виші опинилися у 1920-х рр. після громадянської війни та намагалися подолати упродовж 50 років з перемінним успіхом. Держава виділяла значні кошти, які, тим не менш, не могли задовольнити усі потреби педвишів. Існували проблеми з забезпеченням паливом, електроенергією, організацією водопостачання та водовідведення, бракувало будівельних матеріалів для проведення ремонтних робіт силами студентів. Удару по вишах завдала кампанія зі звільнення приміщень колишніх шкіл у 1930-х рр., коли інститути втрачали обжиті площі, не отримуючи нічого натомість або ж маючи непридатні до існування будівлі. У повоєнній країні проблема організації робочого простору стала ще гострішою. Вона розв'язувалася силами студентів та викладачів на суботниках, ударних недільниках, тижнях відбудови, шляхом самозобов'язань з виготовлення меблів, електрифікації тощо. Держава була не в змозі допомогти усім інституціям фінансами або ж ресурсами. Налагодження у цій сфері відбулося у другій половині 1950-х рр. Навчальні заклади змогли відбудувати втрачені площі, виготовити або придбати меблі, інвентар, реактиви, підручники тощо.

Ключові слова: повсякдення, освітяни, вища педагогічна школа, КПРС, УРСР, політика, побут, простір.

Formulation of the problem

The system of higher education of Ukraine as a whole and its pedagogical sphere over the last century has hardly survived without drastic changes for more than 10 years in a row. The latest high-profile reforms in this field began with the adoption of the relevant industry law in the summer of 2014 and continue to this day [1]. The legislative act established new rules of the game in the educational space. It also influenced the everyday life of the creators and bearers of this university culture. On the other hand, the higher education school, suffering from such interference, felt like a forge of advanced ideological cadres. The life attitudes of a Soviet citizen were polished precisely within the walls of the school [2, P.3]. The employees of pedagogical universities themselves understood their specific function - to give society a “communist in their own spirit” [3, sheet 18]. This sphere of activity of institutions was highlighted in reports and recommendations of party bodies. However, issues of life outside ideology remain white spots.

Analysis of recent research and publications

Numerous investigations by Ukrainian scientists are devoted to various aspects of the life of teachers and students of Soviet Ukraine (leisure, organization of life, determination of quantitative and qualitative community indicators, etc.) written by O. Komarnytskyi, O. Lavrut, T. Naidenko, A. Bader, O. Khomenko and others. There is a logical “division of labor” of specialists according to chronological blocks (the most popular are the everyday lives of educators of the pre-war twenties and their lives during the “thaw”); research of individual subgroups (life of students of universities of various specializations, scientists, teachers). Currently, the process of accumulating historical facts, identifying regional features, and testing various methodological approaches to the study of everyday education is ongoing. Comparing the everyday life of teachers and students with the daily practices of other social strata of Soviet Ukraine at the current stage is not possible in all spheres. The reason for this is the noted methodological diversity (or uncertainty), the varying degree of filling of subject blocks of everyday life, or the complete absence of research in certain areas [4].

The purpose of this work is to cover the reflection of socio-economic, cultural and political changes in Ukraine in the daily lives of the collectives of pedagogical institutes and clarification of the peculiarities of life of the collectives of pedagogical universities as a separate social group in the 1920s - the 1960s. The hypothesis consisted in the assumption that the everyday life of the collectives of the higher pedagogical school of Soviet Ukraine did not correspond to the principles of building socialism enshrined in the program documents of the CPSU, which led to a conflict between the world of ideas and reality.

Presenting main material

During the first 50 years of existence of the Soviet Higher Pedagogical School, its teams had to work in different working conditions. Taking into account the patterns of provision of higher education institutions with premises and equipment, the level of activity of the state and measures of the institutes themselves in meeting these needs, we distinguish the following periods:

1) the period of crisis (1920-1930) (in the post-revolutionary period, universities were often located in separate premises; the available space was partially occupied by outsiders and organizations; the state emphasized the development of public education institutes in places where the proletariat was concentrated; funding for a significant number of universities was scarce; teaching courses were provided for the balance of local budgets; mainly cosmetic repairs were carried out by students and staff; the facilities were poorly supplied with fuel, kerosene and electricity);

2) the period of centralization (1930-1940) (the government showed interest in the problem of the working space of higher education institutions; the process of relocation of individual institutions to new premises began; the special commission of I. Akulov began the mirror procedure of eviction of institutes from the buildings of former schools; the space of the educational institution became closed territory with passes and permits; the development of a system of production workshops; however, the state of peripheral institutions remained in a state of disrepair);

3) the period of destruction (1941-1943) (during the war, the premises of universities were closed, turned into Soviet or German hospitals and headquarters, equipment was taken to the rear, looted or destroyed, homesteads and botanical gardens were partially cut down);

4) the period of reconstruction (1943-1955) (the post-war lack of educational facilities; the economic crisis and the shortage of building materials hampered the reconstruction of destroyed university buildings; students went to classes with their own chairs; repairs were carried out by the stuff; there was a lack of stationery and textbooks; the life of correspondence students was not particularly well-established);

5) the period of stabilization (1956-1958) (new buildings and old premises were in a critical state; there was the discovery of numerous falsification of educational devices to overcome the crisis by introducing self-service in universities; the basis of correspondence training in special classrooms was strengthened; the development of the system of botanical gardens was formed; the restoration of the publishing house activities of universities started; expansion of the network of workshops and laboratories through polytechnicization continued; organization of socialist competitions for the improvement of the working space started);

6) the period of adaptation to changes (1959-1960s) (the material and technical base of large SPIs strengthened; on the periphery, the dissonance of the pomp of the facades and the neglect of the interior became noticeable; later, a new wave of crisis of premises began due to the growth of the contingent; cinematography of auditoriums; workshop equipment and laboratories with modern devices).

In the 1920s-1960s, students and teachers of the higher pedagogical school of Soviet Ukraine were forced to solve many problems related to the organization of living space as well. In accordance with the condition of the premises, state assistance in improving the lives of educators and their opportunities to meet the needs for warmth and coziness, we have distinguished the following periods:

1) the period of crisis (1920-1929) (the existence of a system of academic rations for the maintenance of educators' apartments; living of employees in student dormitories and university auditoriums; refusal of employment and transfer to educational institutions due to lack of apartments; dormitories as magnets for proletarian students; centralization boarding schools due to their transfer to the KUBUCH network (Committee for the improvement of student life); the provision of utilities for students; uneven provision of bed linen and equipment; financial infusions from the People's Commissariat of Education did not cover the needs of the youth.

2) the period of stagnation (1930-1943) (transfer of universities to new places (mostly from the center to the periphery) with preferential provision of the most modest living spaces 4; cramped dormitories (up to 3 m² with a norm of 6.85 m² per person; overcrowding of rooms and poor equipment of student residences, outdated equipment (sheets, pillows, blankets);

3) the period of destruction (1943-1948) (strangers lived in the premises during and after the war; unsanitary and unsanitary conditions in the apartments; creation of a system of workshops for student services; high prices of youth services, speculation by tailors, shoemakers and hairdressers in the SPIs);

4) the period of restoration (1948-1956) (confiscation of teachers' furniture in favor of universities since 1948; the lack of a sufficient number of apartments for teachers led to the dismissal from universities, the impossibility of opening new departments and faculties; the transfer, merger and consolidation of universities led to the emergence of a housing problem in new places; overcrowding in dormitories; “corners” and rented apartments were used as a way out of the housing crisis);

5) the period of stabilization (1957-1960s) (improvement of living conditions after the adoption of the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU “On the Development of Housing Construction in the USSR”; the beginning of the settlement of educators in “Khrushchevkas”; solving problems by introducing selfservice; competitions among hostels on the title of communist houses; creation of models of universal student housing; projects of “cities and neighborhoods of the future”).

The development of the research hypothesis led to the following generalizations. The program of the party in 1919 defined one of the tasks of the RCP(b) to improve the living conditions of the working masses, eliminate overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, destroy unsuitable ones, rebuild old ones and build new ones [5]. However, the inability to implement the declared “rational resettlement of workers” forced party members to note the need to strengthen practical measures to improve the housing and sanitary conditions of working youth and children during the congresses of 1922 [6], 1925 [7, P.998] and 1927, and the “extreme acuteness of the housing crisis” should have been overcome by 1932 [8, p. 1927]. During the 1920s, the daily life of the members of the SPIs collectives ran counter to the declarations of politicians. Many staff members lived in cramped rooms in student dormitories. And the youth themselves, due to the lack of boarding schools, often lived in the auditoriums of universities and in rented apartments. The lack of sufficient living space sometimes led to the relocation or even the liquidation of educational institutions. Despite significant subsidies within the republic, some higher education institutions received a meager amount to cover expenses related to the organization of student accommodation.

The 16th Congress of the CPSU(b) in 1930 planned that during the five-year period, the construction of houses and social institutions (canteens, clubs, nurseries, laundries, baths) should be completed, first of all, in the most important factory districts [9, P.738]. However, the inability to build housing for workers at a rapid pace resulted in the authorities taking the residential premises of many universities and giving them to enterprises. This, in particular, led to the transfer from industrial centers to the periphery of numerous pedagogic courses, workshops at pedagogical institutes, as well as pedagogical technical schools of the republic. In four years, the XVII “Congress of Victors” declared the construction of thousands of houses with apartments equipped with all amenities and the deployment of works to improve water supply and sewerage [10, p.666].

In terms of the housing problem of students of pedagogy, talking about improvement was empty. The dormitories were in an unsanitary condition, without latrines and a sufficient number of washrooms. It was possible to talk about the presence of baths and decorated restrooms in the premises only in the context of individual universities in the capital and Kyiv. Before the war, the deployment of housing construction work should have made the life of a Soviet citizen “unattainable for the richest capitalist countries” [11, p. 665]. However, the war set the Union back decades in terms of solving the housing problem. The terrible condition of the destroyed premises, overcrowding, lack of elementary hygiene - these were the features of the living space of educators in the post-war years. Due to the lack of space for students, employees of pedagogical institutes were evicted even from such neglected service apartments in order to turn them into common rooms for the replenishment of higher education institutions. Therefore, it is not surprising that old problems (construction of new residential buildings, expansion of the network of water pipes and sewers, heating and gasification of buildings) were included in the perspective plans of the CPSU(b) at the 19th Congress [12, p.614]. Repair and modernization actions improved the lives of educators first in large cities. Instead, teachers and students of peripheral institutions in dormitories and service apartments continued to use outdoor toilets, stove heating and public baths until the middle of the “thaw”. Repairs were carried out haphazardly due to lack or incorrect distribution of building materials.

The 20th congress, in addition to the widespread use of typical projects in housing construction, emphasized the support of workers, employees and collective farm owners in the implementation of their construction of residential buildings at the expense of personal savings and with the help of state and collective farm credit. For this purpose, the state had to expand the sale of construction materials and equipment to the population [13, P.478].

The documentation of the higher education institutions revealed that the teams of the pedagogical universities really intensified the construction of cooperative buildings, the construction of housing for employees by their own efforts, as well as the construction of dormitories by students in the context of the introduction of self-service. The XXII party congress, the last during the de-Stalinization period, determined that within 10 years the country should solve the problem of housing shortage, and within 20 years every family should have an orderly apartment that would meet the requirements of hygiene and cultural life, and the use of housing should become free [14, P.298]. Teachers and students of the 1960s were not destined to see this. However, everyday life has clearly improved. It was based not so much on a skillful state construction policy as on an ideological maneuver. The start of the competition for the title of houses of communist life and support for self-service activated educators to change on their own.

Therefore, in the 1920s and 1960s, the intellectual space of the pedagogical universities of Soviet Ukraine underwent noticeable changes. In accordance with the state policy in the field of staffing of scientific and pedagogical staff, changes in requirements for applicants, the saturation of the educational process and the quality of scientific work, we have identified the following periods:

1) the period of proletarianization (1920-1925) (the government defined the main function of public education institutions as institutions for improving the development of the proletariat; universities noted the low intellectual level of entrants; pedagogic institutes were filled at the expense of “those enrolled in other universities”; vocational schools prepared only up to 4% of entrants to SPIs; the lack of education of Komsomol students; the beginning of a purge of teachers in provincial universities; the sending of graduate students from Kyiv and Kharkiv to improve the level of teaching university; teachers had the opportunity to go on scientific trips abroad);

2) the period of adaptation to changes (1926-1929) (higher institutions tried to adapt to the new “rules of the game” proposed by the People's Commissariat of Education; the increase in the educational level of entrants at the expense of graduates of pedagogical technical schools and work faculties (up to 15%); the People's Commissariat of Education noted the need for foreign business trips for students and teachers to increase their intellectual level, however, the government's initiatives were hampered by the lack of money for business trips, the lack of knowledge of languages by young people, the introduction of a mandatory Ukrainian language exam for graduates in 1926; fortnights, Ukrainization workshops; the introduction of the laboratory-brigade method of education in 1925 was intended to stimulate the independent intellectual pursuits of the youth; the government's decision to enroll peasants and workers in order to preserve the contingent had a blow to the general level of higher education);

3) the period of reverse changes (1930-1943) (the authorities canceled most of the previously agreed plans in the field of establishing the intellectual space of higher education institutions; the elimination of the brigade-laboratory method in 1932 as false; the organization of educational relays “For the personnel”, Stalin's relays and shock monthly students; there was an increase in attention to the study of the social and economic bloc disciplines; the creation of support groups for the lagging behind; almost 100% Ukrainization of certain pedagogical institutes as of 1931, which led to a deterioration in the understanding of the Russian language material by Ukrainian-speaking students; the replacement of the exam from Ukrainian to the exam from Russian in 1938; the purge of teaching staff led to a significant deterioration of the academic and professional level of the higher education institutions (educators were conscripted into the RSHA, died at the front, were evacuated to the rear, or lost their jobs in occupied Ukraine);

4) the period of restoration (1943-1951) (after the de-occupation of Ukraine, SPIs at least tried to restore the pre-war level of teaching; the People's Commissariat of Education noted a drop in the general level of the staff due to the post-war recruitment of young people with interrupted or incomplete secondary education and a low general level of training; staffing of teaching staff from among persons unprepared for work in higher education (school teachers, workers of Soviet and party bodies and people without higher education); the limited network of dissertation defense councils did not allow provincial teachers to quickly improve their qualifications; The Ministry of Education found a low level of scientific work in universities with a recommendation to protect up to 60% of works; in the conditions of the “Cold War”, the authorities launched a campaign to combat “low worship of the West” in science, which led to the conservation of scientific opinion, especially in the humanitarian field);

5) the period of activation (1952-1960s) (teams of pedagogical institutes strengthened measures to arrange their own intellectual space; there was an increase in the educational level of students due to the restoration of the system of socialist competitions between groups, courses, faculties and universities; activation of student science through a newly created network student scientific societies; the initiation of traditional student scientific conferences; the strengthening of the level of teaching through the exchange of lecturers from the leading universities of the USSR; the establishment of rigorous competitions for postgraduate studies from 1952 and the definition of a network of postgraduate studies, doctoral studies teacher qualifications, departments of linguistics and philology teachers; the beginning of the promotion of the achievements of Soviet educators through the press; the transfer of emphasis from providing theoretical knowledge to practical skills; the introduction of a ban on the exchange of literature with the West).

The development of the working research hypothesis led to the following generalizations. The qualitative filling of higher education institutions often differed even more from the party plans than the numerical indicators of the contingents, due to the pressure of ideological instructions. Plans to “open wide access in the auditorium of the higher school for all those who want to learn” [5] contradicted further restrictions, which found their expression in the curial distribution of seats, prod layouts, in the system of business trips, in the property differentiation of applicants during entrance exams, in social purges . Overcoming the inconsistency between the party's early declarations and the real state of affairs took place through the consolidation of the provision on the “employment" of universities” [7, p.998]. Due to the fact that the communist government paid special attention to pedagogical universities in the matter of proletarianization [15, p. 667], we can talk about the success of the implementation of this party task during the period under consideration.

The intellectual space was formed with an emphasis on the training of new cadres of education workers, imbued most importantly with the ideas of communism [5]. the ideological factor was higher than science. However, there was a drop in the general intellectual level of students (and especially communists and Komsomol members due to their involvement in political circles, mobilization for work, etc.). This made the XIV Congress of the CPSU(b) to note that the level of education of a Soviet student was significantly lower than the level of development of a bourgeois student. According to the party's blueprints, “the red “specialist” should be not less, but more educated than the bourgeois specialist”. This led to higher requirements for young people and systematic testing of knowledge [7, p.998]. SPIs responded to this by introducing weeks/months for the liquidation of academic debt, relieving young people of excessive political work, introducing a system of electives, etc. During the work of the 19th congress, the issue of improving the quality of education, rather than the number of students, was determined as the main prerogative of the development of education in the new five-year plan [11, p.665]. However, the war pushed back both the question of quantity and the question of the level of education. As in the times of proletarianization in the 1920s, people with low grades and insufficient knowledge were admitted to SPIs in order to maintain the contingent and provide the schools of the republic with teachers, at least in quantitative, if not in qualitative terms.

The further strategy of the state in the influential and intellectual space of SPIs was to polytechnicize the humanitarian aura. During the 19th Congress, the CPSU (b) initiated the first post-war wave of entry of industrial workers "in view of the growing desire of the adult population to improve their education" [12, p.614]. Then they mainly replenished the ranks of students of correspondence and evening departments of PI, receiving education without breaking away from production. In the future, this “technicalization” of SPIs was facilitated even by the abolition of tuition fees, as the XX congress considered as an opportunity for "practitioners who hold engineering and technical positions, as well as workers and collective farm workers to obtain higher and secondary special education" [13, p.479]. The final step was the resolution of the extraordinary congress of the CPSU in 1959, which noted the need to bring the higher education system closer to production. Educational institutions were supposed to admit first and foremost those who had "greater life experience, experience of practical work" [16, P.533].

The everyday realities of SPIs illustrated this process quite colorfully. On the one hand, the workers created their own world within the walls of universities, which at first fascinated teachers with its unusualness, practicality, and purposefulness. The state confidently imposed on pedagogical universities “education, training and training of comprehensively developed and comprehensively prepared people, people who know how to do everything” [16, P.531]. Over time, this desire for the formation of a universal personality grew into the dominance of agricultural and industrial elements in the educational process. Gradually, the level of training and professional motivation of entrants from production fell. According to teachers, it was much more difficult to develop pedagogical skills in those who previously stood behind a machine or worked in a collective farm than in those who chose the teaching path after school.

A similar situation existed in the sphere of development of the intellectual space of the teaching staff. From the first years of Soviet power, double standards were in effect during the implementation of the point of the program of the RCP(b) about “involvement in teaching activities in higher education of all those who can teach there” [5]. The liquidation of the pre-Soviet system of scientific degrees and titles in the early 1920s, on the one hand, opened universities for practicing specialists, on the other hand, led to a deterioration in the quality of the intellectual space of institutions. This forced the government to develop and, starting in 1934, introduce its own certification procedure, which, on the contrary, revived the system of “all kinds of artificial obstacles between fresh scientific forces and the department” [5], which the Soviet government wanted to fight at the dawn of its existence.

After the Second World War, the party returned to the issue of equipping higher education institutions with high-quality teaching staff. In 1952, the 19th Congress decided to expand the training of scientists through postgraduate studies at higher educational institutions and research institutes by approximately 2 times over the previous five-year period [12, p.614]. however, the state had an insurmountable problem of lagging behind the periphery, which, according to the Ministry of Education, dragged even the most advanced graduate student into the "swamp of inactivity”. Despite the fact that the main directions of the development of science in universities of the CPSU saw the regularities of the transition to communism, the analysis of the most important processes taking place in the capitalist world, the exposure of bourgeois ideology and the struggle for the purity of Marxist-Leninist theory [16, P.443], in the second half of the 1950s In the 1990s, research in the field of chemistry, physics, and agronomy experienced a considerable rise in the SPIs. This significantly increased the scientific potential of institutions, opening up the practical side of institutional science.

Conclusions

The signposts of changes in the material sphere of the population of the USSR/UkrSSR, fixed in the program documents of the Communist Party of the first 50 years of the existence of the USSR, rarely coincided with the reality to which the historical players of our study adapted. The party program for improving the living space of educators for 30 years was only a illusory guidepost that did not correspond to the actual state of affairs. The declarations achieved their goal only in the time of de-Stalinization by reducing the price of standard housing and activating educators through self-service.

Before that, the “apartment issue” remained key both in the “attachment” of students to higher education institutions and in retaining a qualified lecturer at the workplace. Non-fulfillment of these social obligations led to the periodic disruption of recruitment to higher education institutions, the need to relocate educational institutions to regions with available living space, and resulted in the impossibility of providing the educational process with high-quality staff and permanent searches for relatively cheap rented “corners”.

The polytechnicization of higher pedagogical education became one of the most successful projects of the Soviet government to change the everyday life of educators. Not considering it as a component of higher pedagogic education, the party encouraged teachers to break their worldview and teaching methods through the creation of a system of general polytechnic education. However, most often, higher and secondary schools had discordant development, having differences in the material base of polytechnicization and practical achievements in the reform. Until the middle of the “thaw”, the teams of the higher pedagogical school preferred to live in the conditions of “catch-up polytechnicization”, rather than leading changes [17]. The formation of the working space of pedagogical universities during the 1920s - the first half of the 1960s can be characterized as a permanent crisis. Prior to that, the institutes lived in cramped conditions, shared space with various institutions, rented classrooms from schools, could not make full-fledged capital repairs due to a lack of money and building materials. The looting during the Second World War drove the institutions even deeper into the abyss. Only at the end of the 1950s were the institutions able to report on the full supply of classrooms and workshops [18]. In such conditions, the collectives learned to “make do with little” and focused on self-sufficiency.

political pedagogical collective daily live

References

1. Zakon Ukrayiny «Pro vyshchu osvitu» [Law of Ukraine “On Higher Education”] (2014). Vidomosti Verkhovnoyi Rady - Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada, 37-38, 2004. [in Ukrainian]

2. Lukyanenko O.V. In the Grip of De-Stalinization: Mosaics of Everyday Life of Pedagogical Institutes of the UkrSSR in 1953-1964: Monograph. Poltava: “Simon”, 2016. 274 p.

3. Derzhavnyy arkhiv Poltavskoyi oblasti, Fund. P-251, op.1, Spr.4832. [State archive of the Poltava region, Fund. P-251, catalogue 1, case 4832], 258. [in Ukrainian]

4. Lukyanenko O. (2019) «Nayblyzhchi druzi partiyi»: kolektyvy pedahohichnykh vyshiv Ukrayiny v obrazakh shchodennya 1920-kh - pershoyi polovyny 1960-kh rokiv: Monohrafiya [“The closest friends of the party”: collectives of pedagogical universities of Ukraine in everyday images of the 1920s - the first half of the 1960s: Monograph]. Poltava: Vydavnytstvo «Simon». 658. [in Ukrainian]

5. Programma i ustav VKP(b) (Priniata VIII sezdom partii (18-23 marta 1919 g.) [Program and constitution of the VKP(b) (Adopted by the 8th Party Congress (March 18-23, 1919)] (1937). Moskva: Partyzdat TSK VKP(b).

6. Protokoly X sezda RKP(b) (27 marta - 2 aprelia 1922 g.) [Minutes of the 10th Congress of the RCP(b) (March 27 - April 2, 1922)] (1936). Moskva: Partizdat TSK VKP(b). 838. [in Russian]

7. XVI sezd Vsesoiuznoy Kommunisticheskoy partii (b). (iiun' - iiul' 1930 goda). Stenograficheskii otchet [XVI Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (b). (June - July 1930). Stenographic report] (1930). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo. 1782. [in Russian]

8. XV sezd Vsesoiuznoy Kommunisticheskoy partii (b). (dekabr' 1927 goda). Stenograficheskii otchet [XV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (b). (December 1927). Stenographic report] (1928). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo. 1429. [in Russian]

9. XVI sezd Vsesoiuznoy Kommunisticheskoy partii (b) (iiun' - iiul' 1930 goda). Stenograficheskii otchet [XVI Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (b). (June - July 1930). Stenographic report] (1930). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo. 1782. [in Russian]

10. XVII sezd V sesoiuznoy Kommunisticheskoy partii (b). (26 yanvaria - 10 fevralia 1934 goda). Stenograficheskii otchet [XVII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (b). (January 26 - February 10, 1934). Stenographic report] (1934). Moskva: Partizdat, 746. [in Russian]

11. XVIII sezd Vsesoiuznoy Kommunisticheskoy partii (b). (10 - 21 marta 1939 goda). Stenograficheskii otchet [XVIII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (b). (March 10-21, 1939). Stenographic report] (1939). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo politicheskoy literatury. 744. [in Russian]

12. XIX sezd VKP(b) - KPSS (5 - 14 oktiabria 1952 h.). Dokumenty i materialy [XIX Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Ukraine (b) - CPSU (October 5-14, 1952). Documents and materials]. [in Russian]

13. XX sezd Kommunisticheskoy partii Sovetskogo Soyuza (14 - 25 fevralia 1956 goda). Stenograficheskii otchet. Ch. II [XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (February 14-25, 1956). Stenographic report. Part II] (1956). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo politicheskoy literatury. 561. [in Russian]

14. XXII sezd Kommunisticheskoy partii Sovetskogo Soyuza (17 - 31 oktiabria 1961 goda). Stenograficheskii otchet. Ch. III [XXII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (October 17-31, 1961). Stenographic report. Part III] (1962). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo politicheskoy literatury, 1962. 592. [in Russian]

15. Trinadtsatyy sezd RKP(b) (may 1924 goda). Stenohrafycheskyy otchet [Thirteenth Congress of the RCP(b) (May 1924). Stenographic report] (1963). Moskva: izdatel'stvo politicheskoy literatury. 884. [in Russian]

16. Vneocherednoy XXI sezd Kommunisticheskoy partii Sovetskogo Soyuza (27 yanvaria - 5 fevralia 1959 goda). Stenograficheskii otchet. Ch. II [Extraordinary XXI Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (January 27 - February 5, 1959). Stenographic report. Part II] (1959). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo politicheskoy literatury. 616. [in Russian]

17. Lukyanenko, O. V. (2014). Politekhnichni mytarstva povoyennoyi vyshchoyi pedaho- hichnoyi shkoly URSR [Polytechnic hardships of the higher pedagogical schools of the post-war Ukrainian SSR]. Hileya: naukovyy visnyk: Zbirnyk naukovykh prats - Hilea: scientific bulletin: Collection of scientific works, 85, 37-39. [in Ukrainian]

18. Lukyanenko, O. V. (2016). Prostorovo-chasovi vymiry povsyakdennya pedinstytutiv URSR doby «vidlyhy» (1953-1964 roky) (ch.1) [Spatio-temporal dimensions of everyday life of pedagogic institutes of the Ukrainian SSR during the “thaw” period (1953-1964) (part 1)]. Hileya: naukovyy visnyk: Zbirnyk naukovykh prats - Hilea: scientific bulletin: Collection of scientific works, 112, 74-77. [in Ukrainian]

Література

1. Закон України «Про вищу освіту». Відомості Верховної Ради, 2014, № 37-38, ст.2004.

2. Lukyanenko O.V. In the Grip of De-Stalinization: Mosaics of Everyday Life of Pedagogical Institutes of the UkrSSR in 1953-1964: Monograph. Poltava: “Simon”, 2016. 274 p.

3. Державний архів Полтавської області, Ф.П-251, оп.1, Спр.4832, 258 арк.

4. Лук'яненко О. «Найближчі друзі партії»: колективи педагогічних вишів України в образах щодення 1920-х - першої половини 1960-х років: Монографія. Полтава: Видавництво «Сімон», 2019. 658 с.

5. Программа и устав ВКП(б) (Принята VIII съездом партия (18-23 марта 1919 г.). Москва: Партиздат ЦК ВКП(б), 1937.

6. Протоколы Х съезда РКП(б) (27 марта - 2 апреля 1922 г.). Москва: Партиздат ЦК ВКП(б), 1936. 838 с.

7. XVI съезд Всесоюзной Коммунистической партии (б). (июнь - июль 1930 года). Стенографический отчёт. Москва: Государственное издательство, 1930. 1782 с.

8. XV съезд Всесоюзной Коммунистической партии (б). (декабрь 1927 года). Стенографический отчёт. Москва: Государственное издательство, 1928 г. 1429 с.

9. XVI съезд Всесоюзной Коммунистической партии (б). (июнь - июль 1930 года). Стенографический отчёт. Москва: Государственное издательство, 1930. 1782 с.

10. XVII съезд Всесоюзной Коммунистической партии (б). (26 января - 10 февраля 1934 года). Стенографический отчёт. Москва: Партиздат, 1934. 746 с.

11. XVIII съезд Всесоюзной Коммунистической партии (б). (10 - 21 марта 1939 года). Стенографический отчёт. Москва: Государственное издательство политической литературы, 1939. 744 с.

12. XIX съезд ВКП(б) - КПСС (5 - 14 октября 1952 г.). Документы и материалы.

13. XX съезд Коммунистической партии Советского Союза (14 - 25 февраля 1956 года). Стенографический отчет. Ч. II. Москва: Государственное издательство политической литературы, 1956. 561 с.

14. XXII съезд Коммунистической партии Советского Союза (17 - 31 октября 1961 года). Стенографический отчет. Ч. III. Москва: Государственное издательство политической литературы, 1962. 592 с.

15. Тринадцатый съезд РКП(б) (май 1924 года). Стенографический отчёт. Москва: Издательство политической литературы, 1963. 884 с.

16. Внеочередной XXI съезд Коммунистической партии Советского Союза (27 января - 5 февраля 1959 года). Стенографический отчет. Ч. II. Москва: Государственное издательство политической литературы, 1959. 616 с.

17. Лук'яненко О.В. Політехнічні митарства повоєнної вищої педагогічної школи УРСР. Гілея: науковий вісник: Збірник наукових праць. 2014. Випуск 85. С.37-39.

18. Лук'яненко О.В. Просторово-часові виміри повсякдення педінститутів УРСР доби «відлиги» (1953-1964 роки) (ч.1). Гілея: науковий вісник: Збірник наукових праць. 2016. Випуск 112. С.74-77.

Размещено на Allbest.ru