ACCESSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION IN RUSSIA: BENEFICIARIES ASSESSMENT AND THE REGIONAL SITUATION
DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2020-6-67-83
Introduction. Additional education in Russia involves ensuring openness and a high level of accessibility, which is reflected in national project «Education». However, the development of strategies and programs to ensure a high level of accessibility of additional education is impossible without studying the opinions of beneficiaries of educational services living in different regions. The investigation purpose is to identify the differences in assessing the additional education accessibility by beneficiaries depending on their residence region. At the same time, the state system of additional education is oriented towards two key target audiences: parents and children. Since the parents have the final decision about what kind of educational program the child will go to, an important task is to establish correlations between parents and children preferences in the additional education. Material and methods. The study was conducted using an online poll. Respondent answers analysis was carried out according to 5 criteria, that are related to evaluation of accessibility, motivation determination of receiving additional education, substantive-thematic definition and organizational preferences of children and parents, as well as regional ranking by accessibility indicators. Results and discussion. 371068 completed questionnaires were received from 85 subjects of the Russian Federation, completed by parents and 59018 completed by children aged 11 to 17 years. The statistical error of the data does not exceed 0.3%. The answers demonstrate that satisfaction with various options for the provision of additional education depends on the respondents’ residence region. Furthermore, differences in the preferences of parents and children are observed regarding the content, format and duration of complemented education programs. Regions which may be as a source of positive experience especially distinguish in matters of building an affordable supplementary education system for children. Conclusion. The obtained results indicate necessity to take into account the regional context and dependence of beneficiaries assessment while building available complementary education programs. This article was prepared as part of the research work of the state assignment of the Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration of the Russian Federation.
Keywords: additional education of children, educational services access, educational policy, interests and preferences of parents and children
References:
1. Alekhina S. V. Inklyuzivnoye obrazovaniye: ot politiki k praktike [Inclusive Education: from Policy to Practice]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovaniye – Psychological Science and Education, 2016, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 136–145 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2016210112 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25781582 (accessed 19 September 2020).
2. Ponomareva T. A. Sotsiokul’turnyye aspekty inklyuzivnogo obrazovaniya detey s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostyami [Social and cultural aspects of inclusive education for children with disabilities]. Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya – Theory and Practice of Social Development, 2018, no. 6, pp. 42–45 (in Russian). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24158/tipor.2018.6.8 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35090830 (accessed 19 September 2020).
3. Shaheen N. L., Lohnes Watulak S. Bringing disability into the discussion: Examining technology accessibility as an equity concern in the field of instructional technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 2019, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 187–201. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1566037
4. Whitburn B., Moss J., O’Mara J. The National Disability Insurance Scheme and access to education: progressive or coercive policy discourse? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2017, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 1065–1079. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1348549
5. Kosaretsky S. G., Kupriyanov B. V., Filippova D. S. Osobennosti uchastiya detey v dopolnitel’nom obrazovanii, obuslovlennyye razlichiyami v kul’turno-obrazovatel’nom i imushchestvennom statuse semey i meste prozhivaniya [Specific Features of Children Involvement in Supplementary Education Depending on Cultural, Educational and Financial Status of Families and Place of Living]. Voprosy obrazovaniya – Educational Studies Moscow, 2016, no. 1, pp. 168–190 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2016-1-168-190 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25774650 (accessed 19 September 2020).
6. Pinskaya M. A., Kosaretsky S. G., Frumin I. D. Shkoly, effektivno rabotayushchiye v slozhnykh sotsial’nykh kontekstakh [Schools that work effectively in complex social contexts]. Voprosy obrazovaniya – Educational Studies Moscow, 2011, no. 4, pp. 148–177 (in Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17111374 (accessed 19 September 2020).
7. Jemeli C. M., Fakandu A. M. Equitable Access to Education and Development in a Knowledgeable Society as Advocated by UNESCO. Educational Research and Reviews, 2019, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 200–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2018.3674
8. McLorg D. Innovating on Behalf of the Poorest Children: BRAC’s groundbreaking work in transforming education. Childhood Education, 2019, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 24–32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2019.1565806
9. Goshin M. E., Mertsalova T. A. Tipy roditel’skogo uchastiya v obrazovanii, sotsial’no-ekonomicheskiy status sem’i i rezul’taty obucheniya [Types of Parental Involvement in Education, Socio-Economic Status of the Family and Students’ Academic Results]. Voprosy obrazovaniya – Educational Studies Moscow, 2018, no. 3, pp. 68–90 (in Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35618157 (accessed 19 September 2020).
10. Pavlenko K. V., Polivanova K. N., Bochaver A. A., Sivak E. V. Dopolnitel’noye obrazovaniye shkol’nikov: funktsii, roditel’skiye strategii, ozhidayemyye rezul’taty [Extracurricular Activities of School Students: Functions, Parental Strategies, and Expected Outcomes]. Voprosy obrazovaniya – Educational Studies Moscow, 2019, no. 2, pp. 241–261 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2019-2-241-261 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=38246980 (accessed 19 September 2020).
11. Klyachko T. et al. Monitoring Of Efficiency Of School Education. Family Participation In School Education, 2019, no. 111901. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42596841 (accessed 19 September 2020).
12. Saifer A., Gaztambide-Fernández R. Choosing the arts: The moral regulation of parents in the educational marketplace. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2017, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1190–1202. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1268949
13. Khasbulatova O. A. Gendernyye aspekty razvitiya STEM-obrazovaniya v Rossii [Gender aspects of STEM-education in Russia]. Zhenshchina v rossiyskom obshchestve, 2016, no. 3 (80), pp. 3–15 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21064/WinRS.2016.3.1 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27161232 (accessed 19 September 2020).
14. Shtyleva L. Faktor pola v obrazovanii: gendernyy podkhod i analiz [The gender factor in education: gender approach and analysis]. Litres, 2019. P. 316 (in Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=20242148 (accessed 19 September 2020).
15. Raabe I. J., Boda Z., Stadtfeld C. The social pipeline: how friend influence and peer exposure widen the STEM gender gap. Sociology of Education, 2019, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 105–123. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038040718824095
16. Reinking A., Martin B. The Gender Gap in STEM Fields: Theories, Movements, and Ideas to Engage Girls in STEM. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 2018, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 148–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2018.7.271
17. Abankina I. V., Alashkevich M. Yu., Barinov S. L., Derkachev P. V., Kravchenko I. A., Merkulov M. V., Rodina N. V., Slavin S. S. Spravedlivost’ normativnogo podushevogo finansirovaniya obrazovaniya v Rossii [Justice normative per capita financing of education in Russia]. Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics Publ., 2017. 120 p. (in Russian). URL: https://ioe.hse.ru/data/2017/04/25/1171670763/%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB_%D1%8D%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%9E%2010.pdf (accessed 19 September 2020).
18. Abankina I. V., Filatova L. M. Dostupnost’ doshkol’nogo obrazovaniya [Accessibility of Pre-School Education]. Voprosy obrazovaniya – Educational Studies Moscow, 2018, no. 3, pp. 216–246 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2018-3-216-246 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35618163 (accessed 19 September 2020).
19. Klyachko T. L., Semionova E. A., Tokareva G. S. Doshkol’noye obrazovaniye: dostupnost’ i kachestvo [Pre-school education: accessibility and quality]. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya pedagogika, 2019, no. 6 (63), pp. 20–37 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24411/2224-0772-2019-10040 URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/doshkolnoe-obrazovanie-dostupnost-i-kachestvo (accessed 19 September 2020).
20. Coombs Richardson R., Vafa S., Litton F. Educating children in poverty. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 2017, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 116–119. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2017.1334475
21. Ghosh S. Inequalities in Demand and Access to Early Childhood Education in India. International Journal of Early Childhood, 2019, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 145–161. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13158-019-00241-8
22. Deyatel’nostnyy podkhod v obrazovanii. Kniga 1. Sostavitel’ V. A. L’vovskiy [A proactive approach to education. Book 1. Compiled by V. A. Lvovsk]. Moscow, Nekommercheskoye partnerstvo «Avtorskiy Klub» Publ., 2018. 360 p. (in Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36949250 (accessed 19 September 2020).
23. Otkrytaya model’ dopolnitel’nogo obrazovaniya regiona. Versiya 2.0. Nauchnyy redaktor A. A. Popov [An open model of continuing education in the region. Version 2.0. Scientific ed. A. A. Popov]. Moscow, Natsional’nyy knizhnyy tsentr Publ., 2018. 660 p. (in Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=37538505 (accessed 19 September 2020).
24. Popov A. A., Ermakov S. V. Didaktika otkrytogo obrazovaniya [Didactics of open education]. Moscow, 2019. 252 p. (in Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36977899 (accessed 19 September 2020).
25. Matskevich A. V., Romanova V. V. Primeneniye podushevykh normativov pri finansirovanii obrazovatel’nykh uchrezhdeniy [Application of Per Capita Standards for Financing of Educational Institutions]. Finansovyy zhurnal – Financial Journal, 2017, no. 6 (40), pp. 110–120 (in Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32476470 (accessed 19 September 2020).
26. Kosaretsky S. G., Goshin M. E., Belikov A. A., Kudryavtseva M. A., Evstigneyeva N. V., Zhulyabin N. M., Maksimova A. S., Petlin A. V., Poplavskaya A. A., Filippova D. S., Yankevich S. V. Dopolnitel’noye obrazovaniye detey v Rossii: yedinoye i mnogoobraznoye [Further education of children in Russia: unified and diverse]. Moscow, 2019. 280 p. (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-1956-1 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=39166864 (accessed 19 September 2020).
( 721.75 kB ) 
( 699.27 kB )
Issue: 6, 2020
Series of issue: Issue 6
Rubric: GENERAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Pages: 67 — 83
Downloads: 614