Home → Releases → 16(3) →

DEPENDENCE OF PERFORMANCE RESULTS OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF A LARGE CITY ON THE NATURE OF REGULATORS (INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS BASED ON THE EDUCATION REFORM OF MOSCOW IN 2011–2020)

Pedagogical Education , UDC: 37.072 DOI: 10.25688/2076-9121.2022.16.3.01

Authors

  • Adamsky Alexander I. PhD in Pedagogy
  • Podbolotova Marina Ivanovna PhD in Pedagogy
  • Osipova Elena A. PhD in Pedagogy
  • Ustyugova Olga B.

Annotation

The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the institutional support for the effectiveness of the education system of the city of Moscow based on reforms carried out in 2011–2020. To address this issue, an institutional approach was applied in the work, which consists in determining the entire set of norms and rules (metanorms) developed and applied by the Department of Education and Science of the city of Moscow in the specified period, as well as in the analysis of successive changes in metanorms based on contextual data. The paper analyzes the structural changes that have taken place in Moscow education, the financial and economic mechanisms of reforms, the mechanisms for managing the quality of education, the dynamics of educational results, and the social effects of reforms. The results of the study objectively prove that institutional changes in the education system of the city of Moscow to increase its effectiveness were carried out in the study period in various ways: motivation, reorganization, modernization, transformation of management institutions and the use of a formula approach, which ultimately made the city of Moscow a leader in the quality of education in Russia and the world and confirmed the formulated hypothesis that the effectiveness of the reform of Moscow education in the period from 2011 to 2020 is based on the pre-adaptation of norms / meta-rules, which was laid down at the very beginning of the changes.
Tags:
education management , education reform , education system , institutional analysis , institutional meta-rules , performance of the education system

How to link insert

Adamsky, A. I., Podbolotova, M. I., Osipova, E. A. & Ustyugova, O. B. (2022). DEPENDENCE OF PERFORMANCE RESULTS OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF A LARGE CITY ON THE NATURE OF REGULATORS (INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS BASED ON THE EDUCATION REFORM OF MOSCOW IN 2011–2020) Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 16(3), 10. https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-9121.2022.16.3.01
References
1. 1. Volynskii, A. I. (2018). Institutional design and theory of reforms in Russian economic discourse. Terra Economicus, 16 (4), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2018-16-4-29-40
2. 2. Smolin, O. N. (2014). Education for All: Philosophy. Economy. Politics. Legislation. Moscow: ICC-Akademkniga. (In Russ.).
3. 3. Vasilenko, N. V. (2017). Education Management: An Institutional Approach. Monograph. Saint Petersburg: GOU IPK SPO. (In Russ.).
4. 4. Klyachko, T. L. (2019). Education in Russia: main problems and possible solutions. Moscow: Case RANEPA. (In Russ.).
5. 5. Volkov, V. N. (2020). The trends of the development of an innovative infrastructure of the Russian comprehensive education system. Izvestia: Herzen University journal of humanities and sciences, 174, 17–25. (In Russ.).
6. 6. Abankina, I. V. (2019). Financing of education: Trend on personalization. Zhournal Novoi Ekonomicheskoi Associacii. Journal of the New Economic Association, 41 (1), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2019-41-1-11
7. 7. Matveeva, N. A. (2021). Orientation of innovative activity in the system of general education (based on the results of content analysis of the subjects of federal innovation platforms). Obschestvo: Sociologiya, Psihologiya, Pedagogika, 11 (91), 27–31. (In Russ.).
8. 8. Shpakovskaya, L. L., & Chernova, Z. V. (2020). Family-friendly city: New public space for children and their parents. Monitoring Obshchestvennogo Mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i Sotsial’nye Peremeny, 2 (138), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2017.2.10
9. 9. Zuyeva, A. N., & Ryabkov, O. A. (2018). The analysis of the system of general, secondary and higher professional education in Moscow. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta, 3, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-6646-2018-3-76-86
10. 10. Malevanov, E. Yu., Adamskii, A. I., Asmolov, A. G., Frumin, I., Soloveitchik, A., Remorenko, I., Rakova, M., Semenov, A., Abankina, I., & Margolis, A. (2020). The School of Opportunities as a Response to a Time of Change. Obrazovatelnaya Politika, 2 (82), 8–17. (In Russ.).
11. 11. Shchelina, T. T. (2019). Problems of the methodology of successful socialization of children and adolescents in the context of a changing situation in the development of childhood. Socialnaya Pedagogika, 3, 5–12. (In Russ.).
12. 12. Boyakova, E. V., & Radomskaya, O. I. (2019). Socio-cultural portrait of a modern teenager and a young person (on the example of Moscow students). Mir nauki, kultury, obrazovaniya, 5 (78), 137–139. (In Russ.).
13. 13. Rozmainsky, I. V. (2010). History of economic analysis. Institutionalism (lecture). Journal of Institutional Studies, 2 (4), 130–144. (In Russ.).
14. 14. Everitt, J. (2020). Implications of educational policymaking which encourages schools to collaborate with the community, external agencies, private companies, employers and voluntary organizations. Social Sciences, 9 (4), art. no. 39.
15. 15. Strielkowski, W., Volchik, V., Maskaev, A., & Savko, P. (2020). Leadership and effective institutional economics design in the context of education reforms. Economies, 8 (2), art. no. 27.
16. 16. Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Voprosy Obrazovaniya, 4, 79–104. (In Russ.)
17. 17. Redding, C., & Nguyen, T. D. (2020). The Relationship Between School Turnaround and Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42 (4), 493–519.
18. 18. Lazareva, O., & Zakharov, A. (2020). Teacher wages and educational outcomes: evidence from the Russian school system. Education Economics, 28 (4), 418–436.
19. 19. Dai, X. S., Luo, L. L., Li, H., & Chen, R. (2020). The reform and development of education promoted by information technology in the artificial intelligent era. Proceedings – 2020 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education, ICAIE 2020, art. no. 9262500, 36–39.
20. 20. Pages, M., & Prieto, M. (2020). The instrumentation of global education reforms: an analysis of school autonomy with accountability policies in Spanish education. Educational Review, 72 (6), 671–690.
21. 21. Scott, R. W. (2016). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
22. 22. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. 23. Knapp, M., Kilian, M., & Katschnig, T. (2020). Education policy and the sociospatiality of school reform-learning support spaces as perceived by students in the context of the new middle school policy in Austria. Journal of Pedagogy, 11 (1), 59–82.
24. 24. Shih, Y. H., Chen, S. F., & Ye, Y. H. (2020). Taiwan’s «white paper on teacher education»: Vision and strategies. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8 (11), 5257–5264.
25. 25. So, K., & Park, N. (2022). Can Teachers Be Change Agents? A Critical Analysis of Teacher Images in School Reform Policies. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 31 (1), 39–48.
26. 26. Cosner, S., Leslie, D., & Shyjka, A. (2020). Supporting Instructional Transformation Tied to Standards-Based Reforms: Examining a Learning-Focused Approach to Supporting School-Wide Implementation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19 (2), 252–270.
Download file .pdf 568.78 kb