It is my pleasure and honor to introduce this new journal issue that features and celebrates two of my favorite educators – the late Oleg Gazman (1936-1996) and Sergey Polyakov (born in 1946). Both have had a serious effect on my own research and career, and inspired a number of others. Oleg Gazman was an exceptionally bright and innovative researcher, and at the same time, a very friendly and humble person. Sergey Polyakov is still very active, writing books, working as a university professor, organizing projects, and supervising doctorate students. There are two papers about them included in this issue. I am also using this opportunity to send my greetings and congratulations to Sergey whose 70th birthday is coming soon, and who has been a very supportive and loyal reader and author of our journal. The editorial board wishes Sergey a lot of success and good luck in every new beginning! In the ‘special topic’ section we present six papers, which while not closely connected with one another, display a mosaic of different research approaches and themes in the Russian theory of education today. Most of the authors are renowned for their expertise, and we are grateful that they have chosen our journal for their current publications. Each of the authors expresses his/her own opinions, which the editor and the editorial board do not necessarily share, but we publish these articles to initiate a discussion and invite you, our readers, to express your thoughts in this regard. Your feedback makes it much more interactive and stimulating.

Current national policy aimed at an active “import substitution,” support for the domestic producers, sanctions’ resistance, a reliance on self-sufficiency and the nation’s own potential, – all these determine, among other things, the social education activity. In this respect, it is increasingly important for social education to be built on the Russian sociocultural foundations [1]. The Russian sociocultural foundations discourse proved to be a logical phenomenon, a logical chain link in the development of the Russian educational thought. It dates back to the perception of humanistic ideas of the Enlightenment (18th - early 19th centuries), then through the adoption of Western European values in education (the first half of the 19th century) and later towards understanding the necessity of their interrelationship with the specific traditions of the Russian school (since the second half of the 19th century). By synthesizing the views of educators in the aforementioned aspect, it is possible to suggest the following interpretation of the key definitions in question. Universal social education values are primary moral and intellectual imperatives based on the identity of the human anthropological development, which are specifically revealing through various periods of history and somehow determining the genesis of social education in particular world nations.

The present-day level of social development, with its extremely high speed of sociocultural life, rapidly changing technologies and occupations, requires anyone who does not want to be an outsider to possess new skills and personal qualities and, primarily, a will and an ability to constantly improve one’s educational level. In the current situation, the system of lifelong education, which is recently gaining popularity all over the world, may offer tangible help in building people’s individual life paths. However, in order to benefit from the existing opportunities, it is necessary for an individual to be a subject of one’s own education. The subject of his/her own education should, first of all, be able to understand what kind of education s/he needs (by analyzing and evaluating both the existing opportunities and his/her own possibilities and abilities), and whether it correlates with the chosen life priorities and, secondly, should be willing to obtain such education and, what is just as important, to purposefully organize this education through lifelong learning. In this respect, the key goal of a secondary school is not only to transfer basic knowledge and skills to its students but also to create the environment that would allow students acquire the skills to learn with all the relevant personal qualities and conditions.

Oleg Semenovich Gazman (1936-1996) is one of the most prominent Russian researchers and experts in the sphere of the personality-oriented education in the 1980-1990s. Gazman graduated from Novosibirsk Pedagogical Institute, a well-known Russian school of education, which trained such renowned scholars and researchers as N.P. Anikeeva, E.N. Goryukhina, and S.A. Shmakhov. Oleg Gazman belonged to this group. A significant part of Gazman’s research career was his work on the dissertation supervised by L.I. Novikova. She introduced many new names and trained a great number of gifted and well-known scholars, who made an enormous contribution to the Russian social education theory and practice. As is well-known now, L.I. Novikova headed a research team focusing on the problems of the collective and personality including opportunities of an individual’s development in a group and in conflict situations between an individual and the group. Later, in the 1990s, Gazman considered the aforementioned problems to be some kind of a source in developing his ideas of an individual ability for freedom, which is understood as a an ability to make an intentional and responsible step away from the imposed beliefs and attitudes, into the zone of the so-called moral choice. Gazman’s primary interests correlated with historical and educational issues, a research of the collective as a subject of social education, and the development of a game theory within the theoretical education boundaries. Gradually, all those ideas helped Gazman develop his own original concept of ‘a pedagogical support’ [1,2]. This concept, developed by Gazman in the 1990s, proved a major theoretical and practical achievement as well as the discussion site in the new (Russian) education reality.

Modern social educational discourse is very broad and varied. It includes youth subcultural practices, patriotism, social networks as a factor of socialization, social differentiation of youth and childhood, and social and cultural identity of the young generation, among others. The state keeps an eye on them together with the public and an academic community [1; 3; 7]. Such "social educational turn" in modern education could be explained by the objective nature of challenges that create the need for a new model of education in the foreseeable future. These challenges include: (1) the change of sociality of the post-industrial society [the transformation of traditional (family, school), and the emergence of new institutions of socialization (media, subcultural community, network)]; (20 the strengthening of a consumer nature of modern life (reduction of the motivation for social participation, the prevalence of nihilistic attitudes, a deficit of humanistic values, and the growth of individualization); (3) the Internet spread and the increase in digital technologies (changing patterns of conservation and transmission of social experience, and the process of managing one’s own development and individual values); (4) different understanding of the role and place of social education (an economic feasibility of educational activities that becomes part of the formation of the social capital, and a social demand for monitoring educational activities).

Recently teachers have been dealing with students who belong to the so-called Generation Y, i.e., those who were born between 1980 (in Russia, it is 1984) and 2000. To have a close look at the interaction patterns with such students we applied a SWOT-analysis used primarily as a strategic planning method. A SWOT-analysis allows identifying factors of internal and external space in a company and dividing them into four categories: S (Strengths), W (Weaknesses), O (Opportunities), and T (Threats). In what follows, we will show how these categories work in relation to Generation Y. Most researchers find the strengths of Generation Y to be the ability to develop fast, to work long and hard (if such work offers financial or status rewards), and to multitask. Unlike the previous generations, modern young people have no problems in changing their residence or jobs; they find it easy to adjust to new circumstances. The majority of young people have freedom of traveling abroad (either in reality or virtually). They are communicative and idealistic as may be seen from their belief that they can easily avoid punishment or have many lives (just like new rounds in a computer game); they have access to multicultural online and offline communication, to different jobs in transnational and international companies and, finally, they are interested in the development of distance learning and the so-called freelance.

Sergey Danilovich Polyakov is an educator and a psychologist, professor, with a PhD and a postdoctoral degree in education. He was born on August 18, 1946 in the town of Stupino, Moscow province. A graduate of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after Lenin (1969), Polyakov worked as a schoolteacher in Yakutia, in Ulyanovsk province, Ulyanovsk, and Moscow. He got his PhD at the General Problems of Social Education Research Institute of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences (Moscow, 1977). Polyakov belongs to the research school founded by the late Dr. Ludmilla Novikova, a member of the Russian Academy of Education. Since 1981, he has been teaching at Ulyanovsk State Pedagogical University (UlGPU), where Polyakov founded a research school and a graduate program in education. He is involved in research in psychology and social education, and in an educational innovation theory. In 1994, Polyakov defended his postdoctorate thesis entitled Foundations of social education innovation theory (Institute of Theoretical Pedagogy and International Research of the Russian Academy of Education, Moscow). He has over 200 research publications in such journals as Pedagogy, Public Education, New Educational Values, Issues of Social Education, Issues of Psychology, World of Psychology, School Principal, Homeroom Teacher, etc., as well as 15 monographs (including Social Education Technologies (Moscow, 2002), Psycho-pedagogy of Social Education and Teaching (Moscow, 2004), Realistic Social Education (Moscow, 2004), Pedagogical innovation theory: from an idea to practice (Moscow, 2007), Collective creative social education: reloading (Moscow, 2015) and others. Since 2001 Polyakov has been head of the UlGPU Dissertation Council in Education. 17 PhD dissertations have been successfully completed under his supervision.

Oleg Semenovich Gazman (1936-1996) is one of the most prominent Russian researchers and experts in the sphere of the personality-oriented education in the 1980-1990s. Gazman graduated from Novosibirsk Pedagogical Institute, a well-known Russian school of education, which trained such renowned scholars and researchers as N.P. Anikeeva, E.N. Goryukhina, and S.A. Shmakhov. Oleg Gazman belonged to this group. A significant part of Gazman’s research career was his work on the dissertation supervised by L.I. Novikova. She introduced many new names and trained a great number of gifted and well-known scholars, who made an enormous contribution to the Russian social education theory and practice. As is well-known now, L.I. Novikova headed a research team focusing on the problems of the collective and personality including opportunities of an individual’s development in a group and in conflict situations between an individual and the group. Later, in the 1990s, Gazman considered the aforementioned problems to be some kind of a source in developing his ideas of an individual ability for freedom, which is understood as a an ability to make an intentional and responsible step away from the imposed beliefs and attitudes, into the zone of the so-called moral choice. Gazman’s primary interests correlated with historical and educational issues, a research of the collective as a subject of social education, and the development of a game theory within the theoretical education boundaries. Gradually, all those ideas helped Gazman develop his own original concept of ‘a pedagogical support’ [1,2]. This concept, developed by Gazman in the 1990s, proved a major theoretical and practical achievement as well as the discussion site in the new (Russian) education reality.

Sergey Danilovich Polyakov is an educator and a psychologist, professor, with a PhD and a postdoctoral degree in education. He was born on August 18, 1946 in the town of Stupino, Moscow province. A graduate of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after Lenin (1969), Polyakov worked as a schoolteacher in Yakutia, in Ulyanovsk province, Ulyanovsk, and Moscow. He got his PhD at the General Problems of Social Education Research Institute of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences (Moscow, 1977). Polyakov belongs to the research school founded by the late Dr. Ludmilla Novikova, a member of the Russian Academy of Education. Since 1981, he has been teaching at Ulyanovsk State Pedagogical University (UlGPU), where Polyakov founded a research school and a graduate program in education. He is involved in research in psychology and social education, and in an educational innovation theory. In 1994, Polyakov defended his postdoctorate thesis entitled Foundations of social education innovation theory (Institute of Theoretical Pedagogy and International Research of the Russian Academy of Education, Moscow). He has over 200 research publications in such journals as Pedagogy, Public Education, New Educational Values, Issues of Social Education, Issues of Psychology, World of Psychology, School Principal, Homeroom Teacher, etc., as well as 15 monographs (including Social Education Technologies (Moscow, 2002), Psycho-pedagogy of Social Education and Teaching (Moscow, 2004), Realistic Social Education (Moscow, 2004), Pedagogical innovation theory: from an idea to practice (Moscow, 2007), Collective creative social education: reloading (Moscow, 2015) and others. Since 2001 Polyakov has been head of the UlGPU Dissertation Council in Education. 17 PhD dissertations have been successfully completed under his supervision.

The history of an educational process development in each national educational system and its analysis may theoretically be divided into relatively finished time periods. The history of pedagogy knows quite a few criteria to make such timelines: paradigm changes, dates of reforms, birth-development-domination-standardization of various original systems, methods, ideas, and the like. I believe such a criterion may well be the domination of certain brands in the pedagogical terminology (like communist education, creative collective activity, pedagogical innovations, pedagogical strategies, student-centered approach, competences and expertise) used in the Russian education and pedagogy of the previous century. By overlapping and coexisting, pedagogical brands, like paradigms, not only reflect the object of scholars and practitioners’ interest by symbolizing some “starting point” but also determining the context for analysis and design of educational process in this sphere. The notion of identity has been increasingly claimed to become such a brand in the Russian pedagogy and education for the last decade. What is the reason of such steadfast interest and what has been its real outcome so far? This research paper is an attempt to answer these questions.

There is a well-known statement, «Education should prepare a person not for the past but for the future». In other words, education should serve as the main innovative engine, which sets in motion the development of the society. There is hardly anyone out there who would claim that the development (including the development of education) is possible without innovations. It is also known that an innovation does not pass without resistance, even with the unanimous support. So the question arises, How to innovate and to provide maximum benefits for any development with minimal resistance? «You already know that although the good is needed, it is a new thing … Our people will not do it without coercion », said the Russian emperor Peter the Great in the early 17th century, addressing his ministers (Edict of harvesting with scythes (11 may, 1721.). Cit. by: S. A. Nefedov P. 160). And 300 years later Russian President Boris Yeltsin in his TV address repeated almost the same words: «Unfortunately, people do not realize that changes will lead to the better, … without initiative, new outlooks, fresh approaches and ideas … a powerful breakthrough is impossible» (Yeltsin. Cit. by: M. Ormston, M. Shaw, p. 68). Not only Russian, but also international history shows that innovations are often held forcibly, without taking into account the interests of those who hold them, and even those in the name of whom they are held. «People without coercion will not accept and will not carry out measures, best designed for their own good» (George Washington. Material from Wikisource. [Electronic resource]), claimed the first American President George Washington in the 17th century. In this situation, laziness, stupidity, and resistance of the performers explain any failure.

Recently teachers have been dealing with students who belong to the so-called Generation Y, i.e., those who were born between 1980 (in Russia, it is 1984) and 2000. To have a close look at the interaction patterns with such students we applied a SWOT-analysis used primarily as a strategic planning method. A SWOT-analysis allows identifying factors of internal and external space in a company and dividing them into four categories: S (Strengths), W (Weaknesses), O (Opportunities), and T (Threats). In what follows, we will show how these categories work in relation to Generation Y. Most researchers find the strengths of Generation Y to be the ability to develop fast, to work long and hard (if such work offers financial or status rewards), and to multitask. Unlike the previous generations, modern young people have no problems in changing their residence or jobs; they find it easy to adjust to new circumstances. The majority of young people have freedom of traveling abroad (either in reality or virtually). They are communicative and idealistic as may be seen from their belief that they can easily avoid punishment or have many lives (just like new rounds in a computer game); they have access to multicultural online and offline communication, to different jobs in transnational and international companies and, finally, they are interested in the development of distance learning and the so-called freelance.