Dobrynina M.V.

The essence and content of the policy of engineering education are analyzed. The study notes that the most active subject of integration of all "social orders": from the political and economic classes (bourgeoisie, aristocracy, clergy, political parties, public organizations, elite groups, economic entities (industrial corporations, etc.), and the community is the state. However, the state in the person of the bearers of power-elite groups-is not only and not so much a mediator and referee in the interaction, struggle and even conflict of interests and relevant "orders". Its role cannot be reduced to the aggregation and articulation of some common integral interest formed because of this struggle (or interaction). The state, first, is the voice of the leading political interest and the corresponding order (the source of which are the individual, group interests of the ruling elites or public interests). National and state policies are not identical. Educational policy is characterized as areas of struggle and coordination of the interests of the state and civil society represented by various institutions, primarily economic structures and the academic community. There are three models of educational policy: paternalistic, liberal and socially oriented. According to the results of the study, the educational policy of engineering education is the activity of political actors and civil society institutions for the harmonization of political interests, defining the goals, objectives, imperatives, priorities, ideology of development of system of engineering education and implementation of financial, ideological and administrative control. The main components of educational policy as an activity are goal setting and strategic planning; development and extrapolation into the education system of axiology and ideology of education; regulation; administration, regulation and control of the educational system development.

The author of this article examines the main trends of reforming the system of engineering education in Soviet Russia in 1917-1925. It is noted that a huge obstacle to the implementation of the program of personnel reproduction was the lack of managerial and teaching staff at schools, training courses and professional schools. There are three main imperatives of the system of technical education development in this period: proletarianization (accompanied by feminization and indigenization); centralization and politicization of education management; review of the content of curricula and training programs educational institutions, indoctrination of the establishment paternalism. The study notes that the state economy required a forced recovery and modernization, so at the end of the Civil War, technical education is the subject of particular attention of the party-state apparatus of government At the same time, it was during this critical period that the third direction of reform was outlined and further strengthened: the revision of the content of curricula and curricula of technical schools from the standpoint of state-party paternalism. The essence of the policy of paternalism in science, culture and education is to ensure that the ideological construction, political values and doctrines, designed at the state-party level in a certain ideological concept, transferred to the educational and research plans of the scientific and educational institutions, repertoire and exhibition policy of cultural institutions. It is shown that the policy of political romanticism ("the imminent victory of the proletariat in the world revolution") was defeated. It is noted that since the mid-20s technical education is focused on solving pragmatic, primarily economic goals.