This isn't a very precise question, is it? Obviously Stalin's time is taught in reasonable detail, what's with some of the most important events of the XX century happening during his tenure, so each period of Stalin's rule is described in some capacity, and there might thus be significantly different, complex portrayals even within the same book.

I found a comparative analysis of 4 Russian schoolbooks by Natal'ya Konradova and Natal'ya Kolyagina of www.urokiistorii.ru, here's a (select) translation of the relevant sections of the table (commentary not mine, of course):

Book	Shestakov (under redaction of A.N.Saharov). History of Russia of XX – beginning of XXI century. 11 grade.	А.А. Levandovskiy, Yu.A. Shchetinov & S.V. Mironenko. History of Russia. XX – beginning of XXI century. 11 grade.	А.О. Chubar'yan, А.А. Danilov, Ye.I. Pivovar. Fatherland history of XX – beginning of XXI century. 11 grade.	N.V. Zagladin, S.I. Kozlenko, S.T. Minakov, Yu.A.Petrov. History of Russia. ХХ – beginning of XXI century. 11 grade.
Year of edition	2007	2007	2006	2007
Stalinism and the great terror	«Towards the middle of the 1930s finishes the becoming of the soviet social system as a special form of totalitarism, leaning on traditional elements of Russian political culture. In less than 20 years because of the internal logic the "dictatorship of the proletariat" overgrows first into a dictatorship of the ruling party, and then also into a dictatorship of one man»; Pg. 178: «A not-unimportant role in the forming of a totalitarian political system was being played by the longing of Stalin himself for единоличной power»	To Stalin's regime only 3 pages are dedicated in the schoolbook (for comparison: to the Great Fatherland War - 30 pages) Pg. 177: «The essence of the political system in the USSR was determined by the regime of personal power of I. V. Stalin, which replaced the collective dictatorship of the old bolshevist guard of Lenin's period»; «Besides the full control over the economy, other "kin" features of totalitarism were present: the statening of the political system, including the social organisations, the all-penetrating ideological control in the conditions of the monopoly of the authorities on mass media, the factual liquidation of constitutional rights and freedoms, repressions in relation to the opposition and other-thinking in general». Pg. 169: «Through the means of terror from the socio-political and cultural life the best, free-thinking part of the nation was removed, capable of critically appraising the actuality and the processes happening therein, and which already because of that by the very fact of its existence represented an obstacle on the path of the final affirmation of the personal power of I. V. Stalin»	Pg. 75: In the time of the revolution in the country «democratic mechanisms weren't formulated, which further on led to the dominance of totalitarian methods of management». Pg. 91: The origin of the cult of personality and totalitarism - is in the political notions, which emerged in the 1920s: the building of socialism in a separately taken country is possible, but по мере advancing the class struggle would grow. «Both of these provisions presupposed practical steps: the growth of military-economic potential and creation of a powerful army; the strengthening of centralism and единоличной power of the all-nation chief - I. V. Stalin; the forming of an ideological apparatus for the processing of the mass concsiousness; the creation of a powerful repressive machine for the exposure and destruction of the "enemies of the people". Pg. 93: «The repressions had not only political, but also an important economical aspect... Deprived of the economical stimulus for labour economy had a need in cheap and even free workforce of the prisoners.»	The premises of the cult of Stalin: the "habit to exalt their leaders" amidst the bolsheviks in the beginning of 1920s, the prohibition of factional struggle within the party by Lenin, the creation by him of the position of General secretary of TsK. «…utilising the disregard of the other members of the party, the romantics and the theorists of revolution, to "paper" actions, Stalin very quickly placed under own control almost all sides of the activity of the party apparatus... Under his influence turned out to be the party means of mass propaganda and punitive organs» (p. 181). The nomination by Stalin of his companions upon the key posts, inc. organs of statesec, the dissociation of the opponents, the persuasion of the partisans, that the "theorists" are preparing a split of the party and the country. The extremely negative consequences of the ascendance of Stalin are already in the beginning of the 1930s - the cessation of the free discussion of the problems of the country, the unacceptability of criticism of the authorities, the mistakes multiplied and led to catastrophes. The Great terror - the socio-economical premises: the appearance of a large number of unqualified workers, former peasants, after the forced industrialisation - a low quality of the production; the incompetence of members of the party in execution of plans of five-years - the equipment would quickly wear down, get spoiled - all that was being perceived as "wrecking". The new generation of managers was claiming the ruling positions - were ready to support the repressions. The most catastrophic were the repressions in the army. The negative consequences of Stalin's policy were forming oppositioners, who also were repressed.«A system of management of the society became, which was becoming more and more centralised. This allowed to concentrate resources and solve tasks unpreceeded in difficulty and scale. The price of the creation and provision of the functioning of the central system of the ruling of the country turned out to be unthinkably high. It is paid for by the suffering and doom of millions of our countrymen».
The causes and the consequences of the war	Pg. 218: The goal of Stalin - to "stand up above the skirmish" (and not participate in the Second World War); the question about which interests were actually leading the soviet and german parties is submitted by the author into самостоятельные задания.	«The unity of the front and the rear of the multinational fighting country leaned primarily upon the feeling of patriotism and state self-preservation of the Russian and other peoples»; «Of course, one of the causes of the monolithness of the USSR in that fearsome пору was its totalitarian nature, brutal state regulation of life both of a separate individual and whole peoples, remorseless terror against real and imaginary opponents of the regime. And still it was not that cause, which was the determining one then".	Pg. 145: «People, who every day risked their lives, were brave enough, to tell what they thought, although they could still get arrested for that» A whole paragraph is dedicated to the problem of collabortionism of the local denizens on the occupied territories; another one - to the policy of deportations in the time of war;	It is spoken about the miscalculations of the commanders-in-chief and Stalin personally in the first years. At the same time - the effectiveness of the party-repressive apparatus of ruling, which ensured the forced militarisation of the society in the time of war.

Some quotes about the recent changes in the school programme:

: And what could be the consensus on the appraisal of the role of Stalin?

A. Chubar'yan, the director of the Institute of all-mutual history of the RAN: It is an extremely difficult question. My personal opinion is that the ideology of Stalin is now not very popular. But as a personality he has become a symbol of order for a part of the population. The people forget with what price that order was achieved, and the majority hadn't lived then and don't know. But there's the war, and Stalin is the Supreme commander-in-chief, with the name of whom the victory was associated. Can it be described without mentioning him as the head of state? Of course not, these are the objective things, about which it is needed to write. But just as objective is that, which cannot be forgotten and forgiven - above all the repressions, the destruction of the bloom of the nation. Then, about that it is also needed to register.

Consensus as described by the deputy director of the Institute of Russian history of the RAN S. Zhuravl'ov:

Ради the preservation of the scientific approach the historians have categorically refused the emotional characterisations like "an effective manager" or "a bloody executioner". "To arrive to some consensus in the discussion of the figure of Stalin is, in fact, impossible. Some hold that he has played a significant role in the modernisation of the economy, in the state building, in the Victory, and some at all state that the victory in the war was achieved not thanks to Stalin, but contrary to", - пояснил the depdirector of the Institute.