The State Duma proposed a measured response to episodes of mass teacher dismissals in schools. The solution is straightforward and pragmatic: principals should be appointed only with the backing of at least 75 percent of staff, and they should first undergo a two‑month probationary period.
In many Russian schools today, the principal functions as a centralized authority, wielding substantial control over teachers’ lives. This situation has grown from several causes. Foremost, the system has tied salaries and school performance more closely to the principal. A common pattern is that principals are selected from outside the school and assume a governor‑like role with broad powers.
Years of such practice have produced a recurring narrative: discipline problems, excessive workloads, and alleged financial malfeasance attributed to school leaders. Complaints cover a wide range of issues, including denial of bonuses, redirecting funds, and pressuring staff to yield profits from extracurricular activities. The principal’s influence in many schools is so pronounced that the boundaries of authority often seem unquestionable.
Another type of director is the taskmaster who ruthlessly tracks hours and workloads while safeguarding income for favored teachers. Some schools rely on staff enticements to fill extra duties, from additional lessons to after‑school clubs and community projects. Saturdays may include mandatory sessions for making crafts, performances, or practical activities, with occasional gatherings on Sundays or during breaks. These duties often extend to a wide array of community voices, from veterans to local activists, all framed under extracurricular activity. The atmosphere can feel heavy, and fatigue becomes common.
The director can also be a source of gossip, friction, and hysteria in school groups that largely comprise women. When a female leader is appointed, networks of loyal supporters may emerge, and those deemed disloyal can be pressured or marginalized. Concerns about bullying of students in contemporary urban schools have been less reported in recent years, but issues within staff dynamics persist.
Bullying and cliquish behavior are not unusual within a staff, and some schools resemble micro‑ecosystems where power dynamics run hot. The principal’s social capital is substantial, and salaries for principals can far outstrip those of teachers, reinforcing the sense of a hierarchical ladder. If the position stems from a regional pipeline, influence can extend into other districts, further consolidating authority. The result is pronounced leadership strength that can border on coercive conduct.
Male directors, in particular, can stimulate a cycle of attention toward younger teachers, while female staff may form informal groups as a counterbalance. The teacher’s career prospects become tied to the principal’s standing with the education committee, and to the capacity to secure funding from extracurricular and classroom activities. In such environments, students spend long days in classrooms rather than in clubs, and well‑off families often ensure strong teacher compensation through private arrangements. The head’s influence on the committee can stall progress, with pressures that affect both students and staff.
The current model, in which principals are appointed from outside and remain insulated within the school, creates a new set of consequences: the traditional teacher’s career path appears stunted and limited.
Careerism exists across the system. Ambition and the drive for financial gain appear normal in many workplaces. The old structure allowed for a grassroots rise within schools, colleges, and institutes, similar to pathways in the military where mobility could occur from one unit to another. A teacher could study, become a head teacher, and eventually apply for the principal role. Active or outspoken staff could join governance bodies, initially at district level and then at city or regional levels, with alignment to party goals when applicable.
Today, the path to the top is less about gradual upward movement and more about rapid ascent. A young, energetic teacher might find the ceiling is the head teacher and then see the ascent stall, leaving the profession or retiring. Horizontal growth, centered on competitive recognitions like Teacher of the Year, innovative seminars, or special programs, provides enrichment and peer respect but rarely translates into major increases in pay or social standing.
Winning competitions rarely alters financial outcomes or fame. The most tangible benefit is an enhanced reputation and a broader tutoring network. Participation on committees often shifts to officials from outside the school, with the consequence that bold, proactive educators may seek opportunities elsewhere, including vocational schools and other institutions.
The situation mirrors across universities and medical settings. Universities often retain a more open structure than hospitals or schools, yet the arrival of a deputy director with a large salary remains a relevant concern. Working in a team with limited advancement opportunities and leadership dominated by externally appointed officials can be challenging. Change is necessary.
One proposal is a requirement that 75 percent of staff support a director candidacy, and that these supporters come from teaching roles rather than support staff, whose loyalty can be influenced by access to unearned funds. A second proposal prioritizes candidates from within the school when available, with outsiders considered only if there is no suitable internal candidate. The aim is to prevent governors from controlling teachers and rudderless funding from undermining education.
This assessment reflects a personal view and may not align with the positions of editors or institutions involved.