Asian Russia education system development programs in the Second Siberian Committee records
The issue of government bodies organization and activities on the empire outskirts is considered in the context of indigenous peoples and new lands exploration history and their integration into the empire. The need to take into account territorial and national differences of Asian Russia had led to the formation of special authorities with a special competence, one of which was the Second Siberian Committee. To attain the research objective the authors have made an attempt to give a complex analysis of the Committee history and its activity assessment in the field of the regional education system development. On the basis of the Russian State Historical Archive clerical documentary sources, the published statistical data, and using comparative-historical, retrospective, functional methods, the authors have defined the Second Siberian Committee members' positions concerning Siberia's governance models, determined the main Committee's activity directions, analyzed the program documents related to the education system development. The authors have come to a conclusion that the Siberian Committee's members, guided by the autocracy commitment to the controlled modernization theory, had not supported N.N. Annenkov's proposal to review the Siberian Statute framework of 1822. Only at the end of the 19th century the authorities came to the awareness of the Russian colonization perspectives with the subsequent ethnos assimilation in the poly-ethnic state. The authors focus attention on the Committee's activities in the field of national education development. The data on the Second Siberian Committee projects in the field of education system development are introduced for the first time into the scientific circulation. The authors have determined the main directions of the system changes in the Committee's projects, in particular, the university establishment, the educational district organization, the increased number of secondary and primary educational institutions. Having studied the statistical data on public education, the authors have noted the timeliness of the Committee members' proposals. By reviewing the Siberian Committee's correspondence with the Ministry of Public Education and Eastern and Western Siberia Governor Generals, the authors come to a conclusion about the central and local authorities' ambiguous assessment of projects. The position of the Ministry centered only on the curriculum changes in gymnasia, not on the necessity to increase the number of educational institutions. The authors note that Governor General of Eastern Siberia N.N. Muravyev-Amursky, taking into account the specific local population, did not see any perspective in the education system development. Governor General of Western Siberia G.H. Gasfort, on the contrary, supported the Siberian Committee project and petitioned for its realization. Having investigated the Siberian Committee educational projects results, the authors have come to a conclusion about their partial implementation. The provisions on the educational district and university establishment had not been realized. The Committee projects were rather progressive but could not be fully implemented in the controlled modernization conditions and the lack of funding.