A.V. Sergeyev
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow

Keywords: academic physical education, physical education, public administration, state policy.

Introduction. Physical training was first introduced in Russia as a compulsory discipline at the Moscow School of Mathematical and Navigation Sciences, opened in 1701. Later - in the secondary school of Gluck, the Maritime Academy, the cadet corps. By decree of Alexander I, a fencing school was opened under a separate guard corps, which became the first military sports school. In the future, the military department and the Ministry of Education continued norm-setting in the field of physical education and sports: the Ministry of Education - through the comprehensive development of the personality of the younger generation, the military department - in the direction of physical training in the army. In the second half of the 19th century, fencing, gymnastics, bayonet fighting were mandatory items in the guards. Since 1872, gymnastics appeared as a compulsory discipline in real schools. After the October Revolution, the development of the physical education and sports system has remained in the focus of attention and interests of the state; the process of forming the physical education and sports management system has begun. Since 1930, physical education has become an obligatory subject in the programs of all higher educational institutions of the USSR in the first two courses of study, having an optional character in senior courses [7]. Today, the discipline "Physical Education" is mandatory in higher education programs in 4 courses of all directions and training profiles, and considerable attention is paid to the physical education of students from state policy [6]. The institutionalization of physical education in the educational environment of Russia, which has gone all the way to the 3rd century, indicates that the state throughout this time has considered and continues to consider physical education of students as a value. The question arises: what does the state see for itself this value and is this only a Russian phenomenon?

The aim of the study is to reveal the value potential of students' physical education from the perspective of national priorities based on an analysis of current trends in the socio-economic and socio-political development of countries.

Methods and structure of the study. In order to answer the question, an analysis was made of the development of physical education of students from different countries. From the standpoint of modern trends in the development of society, based on the theory of human capital, the knowledge economy and the existentially-humanistic approach to human health, the modern value potential of students' physical education is revealed, aimed at achieving the national priorities of the state.

Results and discussion. Consider the foreign experience of institutionalizing the physical education of students. In Polish higher education institutions, the idea of ​​students' physical training arose in the 17th century. In the first half of the 19th century, significant steps were taken in Poland towards the introduction of physical education of students in the educational programs of universities. Already in 1817, sports training was included in the curriculum at the Jagiellonian University. In 1838, a gymnastic school was established at the university. Later, in the 20th century, universities were charged with giving students the opportunity to play sports in the prescribed minimum hours. In 1950 physical education was first introduced into the curriculum of individual universities in Poland as a compulsory discipline [1].

Indicative, given the peculiarities of the country's development and its role in the world economy, is China's attitude to the physical education of students. The compulsory nature of the physical education of students is enshrined in Order No. 8 of the PRC Ministry of Education dated 03.03.1990 as part of the “Program for the Development of Physical Culture and Sports in Educational Institutions”, expressing the PRC state policy in this area. In 2012, a resolution was issued by the Main Directorate of the State Council of China, submitted to it for approval jointly by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance, the National Development and Reform Commission, and the General Directorate of China for Sports. The decision postulates the high importance of measures to strengthen the physical education of students, states that it is unacceptable to reduce the amount of hours allocated in educational programs for physical education, steps are taken to increase state investment in this area [10].

For the United States, due to the peculiarities of the organization of the higher education system, the absence of uniform state requirements for educational programs of the country's universities is characteristic. Accordingly, the physical education of students in the United States a priori may not be mandatory. At the same time, about 60% of professional educational institutions in the United States consider physical education an obligatory component of the educational process [2].

The above examples indicate that the institutionalization of physical education of students has deep historical roots and wide international coverage. This indicates the value potential that states see in the physical education of students. It should be noted that, depending on the socio-economic and socio-political factors operating in a particular historical period on the territory of a country, this potential is revealed in different ways. So, for example, the pronounced military-applied nature of the physical education of students in the USSR before the start of the Great Patriotic War later, after it ended and the USSR was included in the International Olympic Committee, gave way to the tasks of sports improvement, and even later to the tasks of shaping the physical culture of a person. The goals of physical education in Japan, due to the variability of the vector of national policy, have passed, as V.I. Stolyarov shows in his monograph, at least three phases of the change of their guidelines (before 1945, from 1945 to 1989, after 1989) [8]. Thus, we can observe the multivariance of the goals of states in the matter of physical education of students. The relevant question is what state problems physical education in universities today is aimed at.

Currently, health capital, first included in the human capital by G. Becker, which is along with education capital, its universally recognized fundamental element, is considered as an object of economic investment [5]. Moreover, at the present stage, researchers emphasize the significant superiority of the value of investments in human capital over investments in technology and note a paradigm shift in social development [9]. Introduced in the second half of the 20th century by the economist F. Mahlup, the concept of the knowledge economy was widely used in the scientific community, becoming the most important theoretical and methodological foundation of the modern theory of economic development. The term “knowledge economy” is intended to emphasize the roll that has arisen in the determinants of economic development from material and natural factors towards knowledge and human capital. Finally, the thesis that in connection with the transition to a knowledge economy and the growing role of human capital, higher education is at the present stage a key factor in economic development is considered universally recognized. The content, development and effectiveness of higher education are today under the scrutiny of scientists [4]. As a result, despite the initially high role of the higher education system in the formation of human capital, associated with the saturation of the labor market with highly qualified specialists, its importance in the knowledge economy increases many times over.

Given the above, we emphasize that the physical education of students is able to provide a significant contribution to the formation of human capital, both through education capital and health capital. The scientific and educational process implemented in higher education exposes future specialists to the intense impact of the educational environment. Adapting to it takes health resources, which during the course of training have a dynamics of deterioration. This cannot but affect the quality of the formation of professional competencies. At the same time, the skills and culture of self-preserving behavior, formed during the period of study at the university by means and methods of physical education and training, are able to exert a directed effect on strengthening the health of not only the student, thereby increasing the effectiveness of his educational process, but also of the future specialist in the process of his labor activity, allowing you to maximize the disclosure and maximum use of human capital. The issues of the interdependence of labor productivity and the level of health of the population were developed in detail in the writings of A. Smith, D. Ricardo, C. Marx, A. Marshall, T. Schulz, G. Becker and others. Today we can say that physical education of students through its health potential leads to positive changes in the quality of the country's labor force and a decrease in the load on the healthcare system and social support [3].

However, it would be erroneous to associate the potential of students' physical education only with economic indicators. Modern humanistic tendencies fix for the man himself a central place in the system of cultural values. It is important to preserve and develop the person himself. Such an approach is concretized in the global trend of public health policy, where there is a paradigm shift from "treatment of diseases" to "health care". If successful, such an approach leads to the implementation of the second epidemiological revolution. In this regard, it is difficult to overestimate the role of physical education of students, innovative approaches to which are based on the need for its humanization.

Conclusion. Given the current role of higher education in the development of the economy, the fact that human capital is considered as a key component of the knowledge economy, and also, given the described mechanism of the influence of students 'physical education on the formation of human capital, it can be argued that the potential of students' physical education is largely directed today on the issues of socio-economic development of states. On the other hand, the value of this potential is in providing the necessary grounds for the implementation of the second epidemiological revolution, as well as in the development and preservation of the person himself, his quality of life, in the formation of his identity, which is an absolute national priority. At the same time, the value potential of physical education of students is equally realized today in these two areas in all countries where the current economic development takes place within the framework of the paradigm of the knowledge economy, and the system of cultural values ​​meets the principles of humanism.

References

1. Aristov L.V. Mass student sports in modern Russia: interaction of social actors. PhD diss.. Yekaterinburg, 2018.
2. Barabashev A.G., Makarov A.A., Makarov I.A. On improvement of indicative assessments of quality of public administration. Voprosy gosudarstvennogo i munitsipalnogo upravleniya. 2019. No. 2. pp. 7-38.
3. Bulavkina T.A. Personal constructs in context of John Kelly theory. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 2008. No. 2. P. 33.
4. Vlasov E.A. Formation of students' professional health in academic physical education process. PhD diss. abstract. Ulan-Ude, 2016.
5. Zhigareva O.G. Academic physical culture and physical education. International experience. ESGI. 2017. No. 4 (16). pp. 97-101.
6. Marshakov V.A. Policies Estimation and Performance Measurement: World Experience and Russian Prospects for Evaluating Effectiveness of Public Administration: Colloquium "Programs and Policies Estimation: Methodology and Application". Collected materials. Moscow: HSE publ., 2006. no. 1. pp. 182–208.
7. Pozdnyakova A.E. Evaluation of public policies and projects to determine their effectiveness. Obshchestvo: politika, ekonomika, pravo. 2017. No. 3. pp. 64-67.
8. Sergeev A.V. Indicative approach in estimation of state policy of the Russian Federation in academic physical education. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 12: Politicheskie nauki. 2019. No. 4. pp. 105–119.
9. Sergeyev A.V. Expert community's world outlook platform versus national policies for academic physical education service: comparative analysis. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury 2019. No. 3. pp. 96–98.
10. Sulakshin S.S. Modern public policy and management. Lecture course. Moscow: Direkt-Media publ., 2013. pp. 224-225.
11. Yakunin V.I., Sulakshin S.S., Bagdasaryan V.E. et al. Quality and success of public policies and management: Series "Political Axiology"]. Moscow: Nauchny ekspert, 2012. P. 7.

Corresponding author: haymovich@yandex.ru

Abstract

Objective of the study was to identify the necessary conditions for increasing the effectiveness of the public administration in the field of physical education of Russian students.

Methods and structure of the study. The study included a structural-functional analysis of the current physical education system of the Russian Federation that made it possible to develop a cybernetic model of public administration in the field of physical education of Russian students; analysis of the available scientific data and key characteristics of the administrative process under consideration: continuity of the original purpose at different levels of physical education and provision of the feedback mechanism.

Results and conclusions. The author proposes a cybernetic model of public administration in the field of physical education of students of the Russian Federation. It addresses the two key components of any administrative process: purpose and feedback. The analysis of the expert survey results and current practice of physical education of Russian students revealed a correlation between the physical training goals at the country and university levels. The ways to organize feedback during public administration in the field of physical education of students were determined through a critical analysis of the process of evaluation of the state policy in this sector, in particular, in the selection of its quality indicators. It was concluded that a range of measures is needed to improve public administration in the field of physical education of students and increase the efficiency of the appropriate state policy. Firstly, it is necessary to ensure that the physical education goals pursued by the state and university physical education teachers are in harmony. Secondly, there is a need to develop up-to-date integrated indicators of effective physical education model implementation at universities, along with an appropriate methodology for their evaluation. Finally, it is required to conduct regular monitoring according to the developed indicators and methodology.