An earlier version of this article was presented at the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies, 23 October 1986. In addition to the Kennan Institute, I would like to thank the following organizations for their support: the International Research and Exchanges Board, the Russian and East European Research Center at the University of Illinois, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Research Committee of the University of South Alabama. Ben Eklof, Timothy Edward O'Connor, Jeffrey Brooks, Margaret Stolee, Harley Balzer, Patrick Alston, Doug Weiner, E. D. Dneprov, N. V. Kotriakhov, and A. P. Zakharova gave me the benefit of their advice during the research and writing of this article.

1. Speech delivered 22 May 1923 in Tomsk in Anatoli Lunacharskii on Education: Selected Articles and Speeches (Moscow: Progress, 1981), 160, 167–169.

2. Krupskaia, N., “Zadachi shkoly l-oi stupeni,” Na putiakh k novoi shkole, no. 1 (July 1922): 35 Google Scholar.

3. For a discussion of these differences of opinion before 1921. see Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Commissariat of Enlightenment; Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts under Lunacharsky (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 26 ffGoogle Scholar. For the years to follow, Anweiler, Oskar, Geschichte der Schule und Pädagogik in Russland vom Ende des Zarenreiches bis mm Beginn der Stalin-Ära, 2nd ed. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1978)Google Scholar and Gock, Anna, Polytechnische Bildung und Erziehung in der Sowjetwiion bis 1937 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985)Google Scholar.

4. There were other proposals for such radical devices as the Dalton Plan (an American educational plan based on individualized independent study), but these methods were not advocated for the primary and secondary schools with nearly the same enthusiasm, and then stubborn insistence, as were proposals for the complex method.

5. See especially the section's intense appeal on behalf of the method in an instructional letter Metodicheskie pis'ma. Pis'mo pervoe. O kompleksnom prepodavanii, 9th ed. (Moscow, 1925), originally published in November 1923. See also the vigorous advocacy of the complex method in Pavel P. Blonskii, Novyeprogrammy GUS'a i uchitel’ (Moscow, 1924).

6. Sec schemes of programs of the united labor school, grades one through nine, approved in 1923, in Novve programme dlia edinoi trudovoi shkoly (Moscow-Pctrograd, 1923), 9–12 and Novye programmy edinoi trudovoi shkoly pervoi stupeni (I, II. III i IV gody obucheniia) (Moscow, 1924), 6–9.

7. Metodicheskie pis’ ma. Pis'mo pervoe. 10. One enthusiast of the complex proudly declared that the section's 1923 complex programs did not focus on skills in language, reading, writing, or arithmetic but on nature, labor, and society: Narodnyi uchitel', no. 1 (1924): 41.

8. For the fall theme “October Revolution,” for example, Narkompros suggested that pupils participate in demonstrations, conduct interviews with participants, prepare posters and decorations for celebrations at the school and village, arrange dramatizations depicting life as it was before 1917, deliver group reports on the significance of the revolution, read, and, temporarily casting aside an aversion to memorization, recite revolutionary poems. Teachers, pupils, and the community together would evaluate the pupils’ efforts. See Avtukhov, I. G. and Martynenko, I. D., Programmy GUS'a i massovaia shkola, 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1925), 230–231 Google Scholar and Zhavoronkov, B., Kak rabotat’ p obshchestvovedeniiu (na I stupeni) (Moscow: Rabotnik prosveshcheniia, 1925), 100–101 Google Scholar.

9. Programmy dlia pervogo kontsentra shkol vtoroi stupeni (5, 6, i 7 gody obucheniia) (Moscow-Leningrad, 1925), 96–99, 112–113, 124–125, 134–136.

10. For a discussion of proposals concerning history and social studies in the schools and the controversy that erupted over them, see Holmes, Larry E., “Two Ideologies: Controversy over Social Studies and History in the Soviet Schools, 1921–1928,” Slavic and European Education Review 9, nos. 1 and 2 (1985): 1–28 Google Scholar.

11. Tezisy k dokladu S″ezdu Gubernskikh ONO o vyrabotannykh programmakh dlia edinoi trudovoi shkoly I i II stupeni (Moscow, 1921), 7–8. This statement reflected the section's general attitude toward its curriculum and syllabi released that year, which, it said, teachers should try to use (ibid., 5–6).

12. Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv RSFSR [henceforth TsGA RSFSR], fond 2306, opis’ 1, ed. khr. 3277, 11. 73–73 ob.

13. Novye programmy (1923), especially 24; Novye programmy (1924), especially 3–4; Ezhenedel'- nik Narodnogo Komissariata Prosveshcheniia (henceforth Ezhenedel'nik NKP], no. 41 (9 October 1925), 12–15. As part of this effort, in 1924 the State Academic Council required that all local curricula and syllabi be submitted for review to the Pedagogical Section: Novye programmy (1924), 4–6. For a discussion of differences of opinion over the complex method, see Gock, Polytechnische BHdung und Erziehung, 208–209. These differences, however, did not prevent the forming of a Narkompros consensus supporting the method's use throughout the school system.

14. Uchitei'skaia gazela [henceforth UG]. 22 January 1925, 7. The same issue boasted of 60,000 subscribers of whom 71 percent were teachers.

15. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, op. 1, cd. khr. 45, 1. 96. See inspectors’ reports in Sirotkin, V., “Kak rabotaiut shkoly Moskovskoi gubernii.” in Kak rabotaiut shkoly Moskovskoi gubernii (Moscow, 1928), 37, 55, 57Google Scholar; Shkola i zhizn', no. 2–3 (1927), 183; Iz opyta gorodskoi semiletki; sbornik, ed. E. Kushnir and A. Kolpakova (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927), 13, 22–23; Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 1 (1927), 113. no. 10 (1927), 98, and no. 5 (1929), 118. Also V pomoshch’ organizatoru narodnogo prosveshcheniia; sbornik po voprosam inspektirovaniia i rukovodslva prosvctilel'noi raboloi, (Moscow, 1928), 113. See also the comments by the Narkompros official, B. Esipov, in UG, 12 June 1926, 3.

16. See, for example, summaries of such reports in the publication of the Nizhnii Novgorod Provincial Department of Education and Teachers Union, Shkola i zhizn', no. 2–3 (1927): 173–174, 183; in the publication of the Iaroslavl’ Provincial Department of Education, Nash trud, no. I (1927): 63; and for Moscow in Sirotkin, “Kak rabotaiut shkoly,” 12–88. See also the resolutions of the Third All-Mariiskii Congress on Enlightenment, September 1926, in TsGA RSFSR, f. 2306, op. 69, ed. khr. 878, 11.3 ob-4. For interesting accounts of actual classroom practices that rely on archival materials, see Z. I. Ravkin, Sovetskaia shkola v gody perekhoda na mirnuiu rabotupo vosstanovleniiu narodnogo khoziaislva (1921–1925 gg.). Akadcmiia pedagogicheskikh nauk. Izvestiia (Moscow, 1949) 22:69 ff and Ravkin, Z. I., Sovelskaia shkola v period vosstanovleniia narodnogo khoziaistva. 1921–1925 gg. (Moscow, 1959), 65–66, 87–88, 92, 101–104, 120–124Google Scholar.

17. Biulleten' Moskovskogo otdela narodnogo obrazovaniia [henceforth Biulleten’ MONO], no. 1 (2 January 1924): 24 and nos. 24–25 (25 August 1925): 20.

18. On homework see Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 1 (1923): 136; no. 2(1923): 195; and no. 3(1926): 42; Ezhenedel'nik MONO, no. 5–6 (15 February 1927): 12; no. 13–14 (26 April 1927): 3–4. On tests, Ezhenedel'nik MONO. no. 48 (30 December 1926): 20; Ezhenedei'nik NKP, no. 9 (4 March 1927): 17; Narodnyi uchitel', no. 4 (1927): 58. For teachers’ marks, Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 1 (1923): 136; Ezhenedel'nik NKP, no. 6 (35) (21 July 1923), 30; Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 10 (1927), 108; UG, 2 March 1928, 4.

19. Figures for urban and rural schools varied only slightly. Belousov, S.. “ ‘Vtorogodnichcstvo’ i ego rol’ v zhizni nashei shkoly,” Narodnoe prosveshchenie, no. 4-5 (1926): 145 Google Scholar; Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 7–8 (1926): 10; Shkola i zhizn', no. 8 (1924): 53; Nash trud, no. 12 (1927): 9; S. Belousov, “Vtorogodnichestvo v gorodskikh shkolakh,” Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 5 (1927): 3; Krylov, V., “Uchashchiesia v shkolakh II stupeni,” Narodnoe prosveshchenie, no. 9 (1925): 64, 68, 72Google Scholar; Khrushchev, T., “O vtorogodnichestve,” Na puliakh, no. 9 (1929): 46 Google Scholar; Vseohshchee obiazatel'noe obuchenie; statisticheskii ocherk po dannym shkol'noi perepisi tekushchei statisliki prosveshcheniia (Moscow, 1930): 86; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v RSFSR v tsifrakh za 15 let sovetskoi vlasti (Moscow-Leningrad, 1932), 26. The problem continued at such a high rate that the Moscow Department of Education attempted to limit it by decree. In May 1926 it ordered that only 15 percent of the pupils could be held back for the coming academic year: Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 7–8 (1926): 10.

20. Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 10 (1927): 108. On physical punishment see Ezhenedel'nik NKP, no. 6 (35) (21 July 1923): 31. For the attitude toward pupil self-government, Pistrak, M., “Komsomol i shkola,” Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 2(1923): 17 Google Scholar.

21. Tolstov is found in TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, op. 1, ed.khr.45, 1. 16. See also Biulleten'MONO, no. 8(15 April 1924): 5–6, and no. 36 (20 December 1925): 14; Narodnoe prosveshchenie, no. 7 (1926): 133; Iz opyta gowdskoi semiletki, 17. On the failure and even outright refusal to follow instructions regarding labor, see the report for the 1925 All-Russian Conference of Secondary Schoolteachers. Narodnoe prosveshchenie. no. 5–6 (1925); Ezhenedei'nik NKP, no. 20–21 (18 May 1928): 23–24; resolutions of the Conference on Labor in the School, Ezhenedel'nik NKP, no. 27 (29 June 1928): 6; and information provided by a school inspector in Iz opyla gorodskoi semiletki. 17. There were even schools possessing tools, machines, and entire shops but making no effort to use them: Ezhenedei'nik NKP, no. 20–21 (IX May 1928): 24. Grand plans for school plots likewise had little in common with reality: See the Narkompros circular of 30 March 1925 in Ezhenedei'nik NKP. no. 14 (64) (4 April 1925): 13; Ezhenedel'nik NKP. no. 20–21 (18 May 1928): 26; and a report based on information provided by inspectors in Ezhenedei'nik NKP. no. 30 (20 July 1928): 12–13. See also Shkola i zhizn', no. 4 (1927): 34.

22. Narodnoe prosveshchenie, no. 2 (1925): 187–188; I. G. Avtukhov and I. D. Marlynenko, Programmy GUS'a i massovaia shkola, 2nd ed., 80–81. The conference on secondary schools is found in Voprosy shkoly II stupeni; Trudy Pcrvoi Vserossiiskoi konfercnlsii shkol II slupeni 5–10 iiulia 1925 g. (Moscow, 1926), 147.

23. Reports lo a session of the Council on Methods of the Severodvinsk Department of Education, 30 May 1923 in TsGA RSFSR, f. 1575, op. 3, ed. khr. 227, 1. 16; UG. 10 October 1924, 3; UG, 6 August 1925, 3; Nash trud, no. 7–8 (1925): 15–22; Shkola i zhizn', no. 5–6 (1925): 86. Esipov, B., “Voprosy uchitelei po povodu programmy GUS'a,” Naputiakh, no. 7-8 (1924): 78–95 Google Scholar; Epshtein, M., “Shkola, kak ona est',” Narodnyi uchitel', no 7 (1926): 10–22 Google Scholar, especially 13–16, and Shatskii's report in Shatskii, S. T., Pedagogicheskie sochineniia, 4 vols. (Moscow: Prosveshcheniia, 1962–1965) 2: 350–353 Google Scholar.

24. Avtukhov, Programmy GUS'a i massovaia shkola, 2nd ed., 50–51, 162; Leskin, N., “Sviaz’ navykov s kompleksom,” Narodnyi uchitel', no. 2 (1926), 29–31 Google Scholar; UG, 18 February 1926, 4; Sirotkin, “Kak rabotaiut shkoly,” 22. Based on inspectors’ reports, the Nizhnii Novgorod Department of Education concluded that even in elementary schools from 60 percent to 75 percent, often even 80 percent to 85 percent, of the time was devoted not to complex themes but to narrowly focused instruction in various academic skills: Shkola i zhizn, no. 2–3 (1927): 72. The report of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspectorate is found in TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, op. 1, ed. khr. 41, 11. 18–19 ob.

25. See two articles by Stites, Richard: “Adorning the Russian Revolution: The Primary Symbols of Bolshevism, 1917–1918,” Sbornik of the Group for the Study of the Russian Revolution, no. 10 (Summer 1984): 39–42 Google Scholar, and “Iconoclastic Currents in the Russian Revolution: Destroying and Preserving the Past” in Bolshevik Culture: Experiment and Order in the Russian Revolution, ed., Abbott Gleason, Peter Kenez, and Richard Stites (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 1–24.

26. Biulleten’ MONO, no. 16–17 (5 June 1925): 24. Ezhenedel'nik NKP, no. 44 (26 October 1928): 5, and UG. 19 October 1928, 6.

27. BiuUeten’ MONO, no. 1 (2 January 1924): 23. Konovalova, K., “S uchitel'skoi konferentsii,” Narodnyi uchitel', no. 4 (1926): 59 Google Scholar. Pistrak, M., “Nedopustimye uklony v shkol'nom dele.” Napuliakh, no. II (1927): 10, 17Google Scholar.

28. Alarming shortages of items essential for the most basic curriculum, let alone a progressive one, prevailed throughout the 1920s. For three months in 1925 one canton possessed only one pencil and one notebook for each pupil (Narodnyi uchitel', no. 2 [ 1926]: 47). Heroic measures of the immediate postrevolutionary period continued. Pupils used pieces of coal or chalk to write on boards or pans brought from home or on desks and a stove at school. When paper was absolutely necessary, pages ripped from old journals had to do: Narodnyi uchitel', no. 3 (1924): 68.

29. A thorough survey of a typical teacher's week in 1926–1927 revealed that elementary instructors in urban areas spent four to six hours a week in unpaid social work and those in rural areas eight to ten hours. Teachers in the secondary grades spent less time, but still a substantial amount—three to six hours in urban areas and five to eight in the countryside: Narodnoe prosveshchenie v SSSR 1926–1927 uchebnvi god (Moscow, 1929). 42. These figures seem understated given the repetition and severity of complaints regarding social work.

30. Their concern was made all the more necessary, in their minds, by the short academic year, the high rate of absenteeism, and the pronounced dropout rate of pupils upon completion of only two or three years of schooling. A 1926 census revealed thai children who enrolled in school received on the average only 2.77 years of education: Narodnoe prosveshchenie v RSFSR; statislkheskii sbornik (Moscow-Leningrad, 1928), 177.

31. UG, 18 February 1926,4.

32. Jeffrey Brooks has recently pointed out that the value of literacy, especially among the peasantry, may have actually declined during the 1920s because of a breakdown in the production and distribution of printed material and a refusal on the part of the Soviet government to publish the kind of literature that appealed to most readers: Jeffrey Brooks, “The Breakdown in Production and Distribution of Printed Material, 1917–1927” in Bolshevik Culture, ed. Gleason, Kenez, and Stites, 151–174.

33. B. Gur'ianov, “Po stanitsam Dona,” Narodnyi uchitel', no. 7 (1926): 73. The second inspector's report is in UG, 18 December 1924, 3.

34. Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 4–6 (1924): 197; Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 4 (1925): 157; Nash trud, no. 7–8 (1925): 46. The quotation is found in Sirotkin, “Kak rabotaiut shkoly,” 22.

35. S. Shumov. “O chem pishet narodnyi uchitel',” Narodnyi uchitel', no. 4 (1925): 88; Rabotnik prosveshcheniia. no. 1 (1926): 28. Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 3 (1929): 22–24, 25; K. Konovalova, “S uchitel'skoi konferentsii,” Narodnyi uchitel', no. 4 (1926): 58. See the comments in UG on the letters it received from workers, peasants, and parents complaining of the lack of discipline: UG, 5 February 1927, 2.

36. Biulleten’ MONO, no. 7 (I March 1925): 12. Lunacharskii, A., “Printsipy postroeniia trudovoi shkoly i programmy GUS'a,” Narodnyi uchitel', no. 2 (1926): 28 Google Scholar.

37. In sonic respects, these instructors though critical of Narkompros. were its best soldiers. Many other teachers quit, some before they ever started. Graduates of teachers’ colleges (technicums) and pedagogical institutes often used their newly earned degrees to find jobs better paid and less troublesome than work in a school. A conference of correspondents of Uchitel'skaia gazela in early 1926 concluded that a “significant part” of students completing pedagogical institutes avoided entering the profession: UG, 25 March 1926, 4. A few months later, the State Academic Council received an even gloomier report—at best 30 percent of those students completing the pedagogical institutes and technicums would become teachers (Narodnoe prosveshchenie, no. 7 (I926|: 133).

38. UG. 23 July 1925, 3.

39. Biulleten’ ofitsial'nykh rusporiazhenii i soobshchenii [henceforth BORS]. no. 15 (10 March 1923): 6.

40. Ezhenedel'nik NKP, no. 27(47) (II December 1924): 10.

41. I. G. Avtukhov and I. D. Martynenko, Programmy GUS'a i massovaia shkola. Both editions were published in Moscow in 1925. Avtukhov was a member of the Pedagogical Section in 1925 and 1926.

42. Avtukhov, Programmy GUS'a, 2nd ed.. 14–17, 35. 64, 99- 108. The quotation is on 11.

43. Ibid., 25, 39.

44. UG, 24 December 1925, 5.

45. These comments were made at the First Congress of Experimental Schools, 27 May through 1 June 1924, in Programme GUS'a i obshchestvenno-politicheskoe vospitanie, ed. Evgeniia Rudneva (Moscow, 1925), 79–81, 94.

46. Ibid., 250.

47. Pravda, 24 June 1926, I.

48. Narodnoe prosveshchenie, no. 11 (1926): 41.

49. See his address at the First Congress of Experimental Schools in Programmy GUS'a i obshchestvenno-polilicheskoe vospitanie, 180–181; Narodnyi uchitel', no. 7 (1924): 60–65; UG, 10 September 1925, 2; UG, 3 September 1925, 4. See also UG, 10 October 1924, 3; UG, 24 September 1925, 4; Na puliakh, no. 7–8 (1924): 85–87; Programmy GUS'a i mestnaia rabota nad nim, ed. Stanislav T. Shatskii (Moscow, 1925), 9–58; remarks in January 1924 in TsGA f. 1575, op. 10, ed. khr. 243, 11. 5–6.

50. See the following curricula: Primernve programme dlia pervoi slupeni edinoi trudovoi shkoly (Kursk, 1921); Semiletniaia shkota (Kursk, 1921); Narodnoe prosveshchenie (organ of the Kursk Provincial Department of Education) no. 7–9 (1922), 92; Programmy dlia pervoi i vloroi slupeni edinoi trudovoi shkoly (Kursk, 1922); Primernye programmy shkoly I slupeni (Perm', 1922); Programmy minimum dlia sel'skoi shkoly (Moscow-Leningrad, 1922); Programmy dlia shkol I-i slupeni, Vladimirskoi gubernii (Vladimir, 1922); Programmy chetyrekhletnei edinoi trudovoi shkoly (V. Ustiug, 1922); Programma semiletnei trudovoi shkoly (Roslavl', 1922); Programmy dlia I-oi i II-oi stupeni edinoi trudovoi shkoly (Novgorod, 1922); Programmy-minimum dlia edinoi trudovoi shkoly I-i i 2-i slupeni (Petrograd, 1923); Programmy dlia shkol pervoi i vloroi stupeni (Ivanovo-Voznesensk, 1923); Programmy shkol I i II stupeni (Vladivostok, 1923); Programma minimum dlia shkoly I stupeni s chetyrekhletnim kursom obucheniia (Ekaterinburg, 1923); Programmy dlia shkol semiletok i pervykh trekh grupp shkol II-oi stupeni (Ekaterinburg. 1924); Programmy- minimum edinoi trudovoi shkoly (Leningrad, 1925); Programmy dlia pervogo i vtorogo kontsentra shkol-semilelok Riazansko-ural'skoi zheleznoi dorogi (Saratov, 1926); Programmy dlia sel'skoi shkoly I-i slupeni (Penza, 1926).

51. See these curricula: Programmy-minimum dlia edinoi trudovoi shkoly I-i i 2-i stupeni (Petrograd, 1923), V; Programmy (Ilia shkol semiletok i penvykh trekh grupp shkol II-oi stupeni (Ekaterinburg, 1924); Programme dlia III i IV grupp shkol I stupeni (Ekaterinburg, 1924); Programmnyi material dlia shkol l-i stupeni po III-mu i IV-mu godam obucheniia (Ivanovo-Vozncsensk, 1927), especially 6, 8, 91, 94 ff. Although printed in 1927, this curriculum was designed before receipt of the pivotal curriculum that year from Narkompros.

52. Programmy I-i stupeni edinoi trudovoi shkoly (Saratov, 1922), 3; Uchebnyi plan i programmv edinoi trudovoi shkoly I stupeni (4-kh letki) (Samara, 1922), iii; Programmy dlia shkol pervoi i vtoroi stupeni (Ivanovo-Vozncsensk, 1923), 3–4; Programma minimum dlia shkolv I stupeni s chetyrekhletnim kursom obucheniia (Ekaterinburg. 1923), 3–7; Novye programmy I i 2 godov obucheniia shkol I-i stupeni (Nikol'sk, 1924), 5; Programmy edinoi trudovoi shkoly II stupeni (5, 6., 7, 8 i 9 gody obucheniia) (Khabarovsk-Vladivostok, 1926), 3.

53. Programmy dlia shkol I-i stupeni, Vladimirskoi gubernii (Vladimir, 1922), 7. The Samara criticism is found in Programmnye muteriah dlia edinoi trudovoi shkolv I stupeni (chetvrekhletki) (Samara, 1923), 3.

54. Sirotkin, “Kak rabotaiut shkoly,” 86–87.

55. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, op. 1, ed. khr. 41, 1. 4 ob.

56. Vestnik prosveshcheniia. no. 4 (1923): 1–2, 203–204. See the response by P. N. Shimbirev, a teacher from 1904 and now an instructor at a Moscow teachers’ college on 7 -9 of the same issue.

57. Programme V, VI i VII grupp shkoly 7-letki gor. Moskvy i Moskovskoi gubernii (Moscow. 1925); Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 6(1925): 133.

58. Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 1 (1926): 24–32.

59. Praktika raboty po programme GUS'a; rabochaia kniga uchitelei I stupeni (Moscow, 1926) 1:6, 50–51, and 2:6, 46–48.

60. Vestnik prosveshcheniia, no. 10 (1926): 20 ft. The quotation can be found in Programmy dlia vtorogo kontsentra shkoly semiletki (V, VI i VII gody obucheniia) (Moscow, 1926), 12.

61. Massovoe prosveshchenie v SSSR (k itogam pervoi pialiletki) (Moscow, 1933), 6–9; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v RSFSR v tsifrakh, 31.

62. For the educational program of the technical lobby, see Fitzpatrick, Sheila, Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union, 1921–1934 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the Komsomol program, Fisher, Ralph Talcott, Pattern for Soviet Youth; A Study of the Congresses of the Komsomol, 1918–1954 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959)Google Scholar.

63. Narodnoe obrazovanie v SSSR; Sbornik dokumenlov, 1917–1973 gg. (Moscow, 1974), 150, and Direktivy VKP(b) po voprosam prosveshcheniia (Moscow-Leningrad, 1930), 283–284.

64. On funding see Pedagogkheskaia entsiklopediia (Moscow, 1927), l:cols. 1082–1098; Narodnoe prosveshchenie v RSFSR, 110–111; A. Vasil'ev, “Biudzhet narodnogo obrazovaniia v SSSR,” Narodnoe prosveshchenie, no. 4 (1928): 120–130.

65. Programme GUS'u i obshchestvenno-politicheskoe vospitanie, 117, and her remarks at a Moscow conference of teachers in January 1925 in Uchitel'stvo nu novykh putiakh; sbornik suuei, dokladov i malerialov Vsesoiuznogo s″ezda uchitelei (Leningrad, 1925), 181–182.

66. Pidkasistyi, Pavel I., N. K. Krupskaia o soderzhanii obrazovaniia v sovetskoi shkole (Moscow: Gos. uchebno-pedagogicheskoc izdatel'stvo, 1962), 56–57, based on archival recordsGoogle Scholar.

67. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, op. l,ed. khr. 41. 11. 4–4 ob.

68. See Pistrak's comments at the First All-Russian Conference of Secondary Schools, Voprosy shkoly II stupeni, 132–134, 158.

69. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, op. I, ed. khr. 41,1. 5. A. Radchenko, “Zatrudneniia v rabote po novym programmam i puti k ikh razresheniiu.” in Programme GUS'u i mestnaia rabota nail nimi, 91.

70. UG, 10 September 1925, 2.

71. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, op. l.ed. khr. 41, 11. 19 ob–20; 1. 18.

72. Ibid., 11. 24–25.

73. Ibid., 11. 60–60 ob, 65–84.

74. Ibid., 11. 62–64, 87.

75. Ibid., 1. 62. 1. 95.

76. Ibid., 1. 62.

77. From my interview wiih M. N. Skatkin at the Institute of General Pedagogy of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, Moscow, 2 December 1985.

78. Pidkasistyi, Krupskaia o soderzhanii obrazovaniia 57; Ravkin, Sovetskaia shkola v period vosstanovleniia, 99.

79. Lunacharskii, A., “Na bor'bu za narodnoe prosveshchenie,” Narodnoe prosveshchenie, no. 2 (1926): 16 Google Scholar.

80. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, op. 1, ed. khr. 41, 11. 36–38, 124–127 ob. See also a summary of the 19 May session in UG, 22 May 1926, 2.

81. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, op. 1, ed. khr. 41, 11. 124–124 ob, 36; 1. 38; 11. 126 ob–127.

82. Ibid., 1. 38. The archival records for these sessions refer only to Esipov's attendance and not to any remarks he may have made, but he published in UG, 24 June 1927, 3, and 15 July 1927, 3. See also V pomoshct' organizatoru, 113–114, 123.

83. TsGA RSFSR, f. 298, op. 1, ed. khr. 41, 11. 37, 125 ob–126.

84. Ibid., 11. 37, 125–126.

85. M. Epshtein, “Shkola, kak ona est',” Narodnyi uchitel', no. 7 (1926); 21–22.

86. Narodnoe prosveshchenie, no. 7 (1926): 134.

87. Ibid., 134.

88. Programmy GUS'a cilia pervogo i vlorogo godov sel'skoi shkoly I stupeni (s izmeneniiami. sdelannymi na osnovanii ucheta opyta) (Moscow, 1926). See a summary of the major changes by Esipov in UG, 28 August 1926, 3. Two separate works were printed for the primary schools: Programmv i metodicheskie zapiski edinoi trudovoi shkoly. Vypusk I: Gorodskie i sel'skie shkoly I stupeni. Programmv (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927), 302, and Programmy i melodicheskie zapiski edinoi trudovoi shkoly. Vypusk 2: Gorodskie i sel'skie shkoly I stupeni. Metodicheskie zapiski k programmam (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927), 263. For grades five through seven, Narkompros released the 440-page Programmy i metodicheskie zapiski edinoi trudovoi shkoly. Vypusk 3. 1-i kontsentr gorodskoi shkoly II stupeni (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927). A 354-page volume appeared for grades eight and nine: Programmy i metodicheskie zapiski edinoi trudovoi shkoly. Vypusk 6. 2-i kontsentr shkoly II stupeni. Programmy spetsial'nykh predmeiov (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927).

89. On this latter point, see Programmy i metodicheskie zapiski, Vvpusk 3: 18.

90. Ibid., l: 14, 2: 155.

91. Ibid., l: 16.

92. Ibid., 3: 15, 30.

93. Ibid.. l: 4, 5, 7; 3:26–29. UG. 6 January 1928, 5.

94. Shkola i zhizn', no. 4(1928): 31; no. 5–6(1928): 6.

95. Epshtein, M., “Voprosy massovoi obshcheobrazovatel'noi shkoly,” Narodnyi uchitel', no. 1 (1927): 26 Google Scholar; UG. 18 November 1927. 3; UG. 20 January 1928, 3.

96. The interpretation that outside forces were largely responsible for an abrupt change in attitude and school policy at Narkompros coincides with the findings of other scholars in other areas. See Solomon, Susan Gross, The Soviet Agrarian Debate: A Controversy in Social Science, 1923–1929 (Boulder, Colo: Westview, 1977)Google Scholar; Solomon, Peter H. Jr., “Soviet Penal Policy, 1917–1934: A Reinterpretation,” Slavic Review 39 (June 1980): 195–217 Google Scholar; and chapter 6, “The Party Takes Control,” in Richard Taylor, The Politics of the Soviet Cinema, 1917–1929 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 102–123. See also Anweiler, Geschichte, 298, 339, and Anweiler, Oskar, “Erziehungs- und Bildungspolitik,” in Kullurpolitik der Sowjetunion, ed. Anweiler, Oskar and Ruffman, Karl-Heinz (Stuttgart: Kroner, 1973), 48–49 Google Scholar.