There is a noticeable split in schools today, a curious separation between core subjects and what looks like related content that often isn’t treated the same way.
In many programs, math appears at the core, followed by something that resembles math but isn’t truly the same. Reading and literature sit next to activities that are not about books yet claim a link to literacy. The world around us, geography and biology, sometimes sit beside topics that feel too intricate or unclear for students. This separation runs alongside the main curriculum as extracurriculars, elective courses, and targeted programs. The phrase literacy is used to describe a broad range of subjects like reading, mathematics, finance, natural science, home economics, computer science, and practical skills. The question remains: what are these parallel worlds, why do they exist, and why doesn’t one subject seem enough?
The roots of this situation trace back to international assessments of education quality. Studies like PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS focus on the ability to apply knowledge in everyday life rather than memorizing facts. It is not about reciting the Pythagorean theorem or quoting long sections of Tolstoy. The key measure is whether a student can solve real-world problems using geometry, such as planning minor repairs, or understand a text and calculate its implications, like determining the outcome of a court decision. It also means knowing how much water to take on a day hike in the desert. In the past, the achievements of students in these assessments did not stand out as extraordinary in that context.
In 2018, national results showed students ranking 31st in reading, 30th in mathematics, and 33rd in science on PISA. This upset officials in the Ministry of Education and related oversight bodies. The response included tightening control over schools and pressuring teachers to accelerate learning, potentially even prioritizing compliance over depth. The plan suggested improving the quality of teaching in core subjects, updating programs and methods, and attracting qualified teachers with higher salaries. Yet the reaction was to push more quick, after-hours preparation and test-focused work instead of sustained study. The result felt like a drag on real learning and curiosity, a push to cover more material with less understanding.
The next round of measurements occurred in 2021, with the study postponed to spring 2022 due to the pandemic. Russia was not included in the assessment, but the goal remained clear: to measure how students fare across different literacy types. The idea was to test a broad set of skills, from numerical reasoning to textual comprehension, even within a more limited group. The question remained whether elective courses added value or simply crowded the schedule with little payoff.
This is how education appeared to diversify, almost as if viewed through a foggy mirror or read slowly by Hoffmann: here is math, and here is financial literacy; here is computer science, and here is the same idea wrapped differently. The lack of integration raises questions about why one part of learning cannot be connected to another. Economics exists as a separate social science block, yet economic concepts show up in algebra problems. Exams include puzzles about choosing loans or calculating compound interest. Across biology, chemistry, and physics, many tasks are framed to relate to life outside school, especially in everyday contexts. Still, questions persist: why do we layer elective activities, distance courses, and tests onto students’ main programs without a clear, coherent plan?
In early spring, orders went out to St. Petersburg schools inviting all to participate in the All-Russian Financial Literacy Weeks for Children and Youth in 2023. Many headteachers handed the initiative to classroom teachers, regardless of whether those teachers specialized in economics. The goal was to reach a broad audience, yet this mass approach often produced uneven results. The emphasis was on visibility and compliance, rather than on meaningful understanding. The hope lingered that many teachers would resist overbearing demands in the end.
Earlier still, programs for healthy eating were rolled out in schools across St. Petersburg. Students from middle and elementary levels faced long training materials, videos, and tests with certificates at the end. Classroom teachers again took responsibility for assessment, and some parents were asked to engage more deeply. Stress grew in parent groups as some tests proved exceptionally challenging, with limited support available for families trying to help their children at home. The certificates appeared to promise progress, but concern grew that real knowledge might be missed in the process.
Amid these developments, families watched the system struggle to balance curriculum, health education, and financial literacy with a heavy schedule. The result was a sense that information could appear in the head without steady, practical understanding. The core challenge was clear: students need functional literacy that translates into everyday decisions, not just more certificates or boxed tasks. A prominent education leader later described the situation in plain terms, explaining that the overload of schoolwork left students unable to master the program as it stood. This observation highlighted a crucial point: literacy should be a foundation, not a condition that hinders learning. The shift needed is toward integrating core disciplines with practical literacy in a coherent way that supports genuine understanding.
In the end, the focus remains on how schools equip students to think clearly, solve problems, and apply knowledge outside the classroom. The insights from these discussions emphasize the importance of integrating literacy across subjects, reducing unnecessary fragmentation, and ensuring that new programs strengthen rather than overwhelm. The broader aim is straightforward: help young people develop usable skills that empower them in daily life, now and in the future.
The discussion above reflects a collective concern about how to balance core education with practical literacy. It invites readers to consider how schools can deliver depth, coherence, and relevance in a changing world, where knowledge must translate into real-world capability. [citation needed]