Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality,
and to see the links to virtual rooms.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Ivan Ivanov
(HSE University)
Ulviyya Mikayilova (ADA University)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Isak Froumin
(HSEJacobs University Bremen)
- Discussant:
-
Sergey Kosaretsky
(HSE University)
- Formats:
- Panel
- Theme:
- Education
- Location:
- Room 111
- Sessions:
- Friday 24 June, -
Time zone: Asia/Tashkent
Short Abstract:
Educational equality was one of the most important characteristics of the Soviet education system. The collapse of the USSR has worsen the problem of educational inequality in post-Soviet countries. The panel discussion will be focused on the key its trends and factors in former Soviet republics..
Long Abstract:
The study of various aspects of the transformation of the post-Soviet space has been the focus of research in social sciences and humanities throughout the period of post-Soviet transit (Linz, Stepan, 1996; Burawoy, 2011, etc.). Education equality is one of the most important characteristics of the Soviet education system With the collapse of the USSR, the problem of educational inequality in post-Soviet countries began to worsen.
The growth of inequality can be explained with the conscious policy of post-Soviet countries to abandon the Soviet legacy at any cost as a political signal of a break with the Soviet (interpreted in post-Soviet countries as a colonial) past. In this sense, a number of changes in the post-Soviet space were built based on those system solutions that maximally diverted national educational systems from the fundamental basic structures of Soviet education and, in particular, from those elements that were based on the principles of educational equality (Berinsky, Lenz, 2011; Burawoy, 2011; Fish, 1998, etc).
Among the causes of inequality, there are steps in post-Soviet countries aimed at refraction of educational reforms through the prism of global educational changes. Changes in national educational systems in the former Soviet republics are interpreted in the logic of maximum integration into global trends of change (Saltman, Means, 2018; Adamson, Astrand, Darling-Hammond, 2018). Global trends were largely neoliberal in nature, and at the same time did not consider the factor of increasing educational inequality (Kosaretsky, Grunicheva, Goshin, 2016).
Inequality in extracurricular education is a relatively poorly developed area of research with high potential (Wang, 2015; Snellman, Silva & Putnam, 2015; Alhadeff, 2019). Studies show that extracurricular education allows overcoming barriers related to the socio-economic status of participants, increasing the level of accessibility of educational services, promoting gender equality, helping children from disadvantaged families, removing difficulties of integrating migrants into a single educational space (Covay and Carbonaro, 2010; Ganz, Earles-Vollrath and Cook, 2011). At the same time, there are no comparative studies of inequality in additional education in the post-Soviet space in the presence of expressed interest.
During the panel discussion, participants will present country cases, as well as discuss general trends and key factors affecting the growth of inequality in education, as well as steps that states are taking to overcome educational inequality.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Friday 24 June, 2022, -Ivan Ivanov (HSE University) Sergey Kosaretsky (HSE University)
Paper short abstract:
The study of the transformation of extracurricular education in post-Soviet countries makes it possible to assess the risks of educational inequality, fix the existing and developing trends and compare national models with the challenges of inequality.
Paper long abstract:
The Soviet ECE system had no analogs in terms of a set of basic characteristics that aspired to provide wide access and quality of services. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in education, including ECE, there have been systemic changes in the network, market development and de-monopolization, as well as diversification of stakeholders. Social stratification leads to increase the inequality of access.
The framework of the study includes wide framework of institutional economic theory (Coase, 1937; North, 1991), as well as neoinstitutionalism (Meyer, 1977; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) in the context of neoliberal transit (Mitter, 1992, 2003; Silova, 2009, 2010) concept of inequality in education (Coleman et al., 1966; Bennett, Lutz, and Jayaram, 2012).
This study includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Russia. The method of data collection and analysis included expert interviews, analysis of standards and policies, short structured surveys of participants and stakeholders.
The preliminary results of the study allow us to draw conclusions about the institutional diversity of models and approaches in independent republics. The expansion of stakeholders in the sector, as well as the emergence of new players allows for a variety of proposals and the agenda in the response of national education systems to the challenges of sustainable development; it also complicates the communication of sector participants and makes a number of vulnerable groups more vulnerable in the conditions of society’s social differentiation, on the one hand, and market development and paid services, on the other hand.
Ulviyya Mikayilova (ADA University)
Paper long abstract:
An analysis of inclusive education reform in Azerbaijan will be presented. Using the UNESCO education policy planning framework, the author examines how social, educational, and cultural factors have contributed to limited progress in national education policy. As result of a “pragmatic” approach, the idea of inclusion of children with disabilities was “translated” into the “hybridization” of special schools. The paper provides a discussion of lessons learned from the first cycle of the reform process where, despite the challenges faced, there have been positive attitudinal changes towards the concept of inclusive education. This analysis may be helpful in the further national education reform processes, as well as in international discourse on country-specific localization of inclusive education.
Gulnara Kusidenova (GL talimger)
Paper short abstract:
Kazakh participants studying in Russian showed more successful performance of the PISA-2015 test in comparison with their peers with the Kazakh language of instruction. The difference in indicators in the context of the languages of instruction is 50 points.
Paper long abstract:
A lot depends on the quality of infrastructure and the quality of educational personnel. If an institution is unable to follow a modern school curriculum due to a shortage or lack of necessary conditions, equipment, due to a lack of teachers, this then affects the life path of graduates. They are less competitive in employment, this affects their ability to move up the social ladder. In the absence of a high-quality platform in the form of education, it is not easy to move up.