Concepts of child development in the standards of preschool education in Russia and China: cultural, historical and comparative analysis (1990s-2020s)

Abstract

The study analyzes the evolution of concepts of child development in the preschool education standards of Russia and China in the 1990s-2020s from a cultural-historical and comparative perspective, with the aim of identifying the axiological and anthropological foundations that determine the trajectories of the two countries’ upbringing models. The source base includes regulatory documents: for the Russian Federation – the Temporary Requirements (1995), the Federal State Requirements (2009), and the Federal State Educational Standard for Preschool Education (2013); for the PRC – the Guidelines for Kindergarten Education (2001) and the Guidelines for Learning and Development of Children Aged 3-6 (2012), analyzed using comparative-historical, content and conceptual analysis, as well as hermeneutics. Operationalization of the concepts was ensured by frequency and semantic analysis of the categories personality, individuality, creativity, collective, patriotism, socialization, followed by interpreting normative texts as cultural artifacts. Divergent trajectories are identified: in Russia – a transition from de-ideologization and a child-centered liberal-humanist discourse of the 1990s to the re-ideologization of the 2010s-2020s with a synthesis of personal development and spiritual-moral, patriotic guidelines. China demonstrates stable continuity of socialist values with Chinese characteristics, integrating global trends (play-based methodologies, emotional intelligence, creativity) within a framework of the collective good and social harmony, where individual development is instrumental to societal goals. Comparative matrices capture differences in the image of the ideal graduate, the role of the collective, the understanding of play, and the teacher’s position, revealing divergent notions of freedom, responsibility, and creativity. In the Russian standards, play is intrinsically valuable and supported by the teacher-as-facilitator as a space for initiative and the zone of proximal development, whereas in China it is a managed instrument of socialization under a mentor’s guidance. The teacher’s role in Russia is conceptualized as subject – subject partnership and individualization in partnership with parents, while in China it is authoritative mentorship, order, and collective learning with an enlightenment stance toward the family. The discussion shows Russia’s search for a balance between individual freedom and state consolidation amid internal eclecticism of the standard, whereas the Chinese model retains conceptual coherence and the systemic character of patriotic education. The conclusion views standards as sociopolitical documents reflecting ideological shifts; behind superficially similar terminology lie different civilizational codes, which requires cautious policy borrowing and contextualization in program design.