Problems of accessibility of general education in modern Russia. Problems of access to quality education in rural areas Education system and social inequality
The consequences of all the above processes for the accessibility of education to citizens of the country are ambiguous. If we consider aggregate quantitative indicators of the development of the higher education system in Russia, they indicate an increase in the accessibility of vocational education. Thus, the number of university students has doubled over the past ten years, while the number of people aged 15 to 24 years old has increased by only 12%. State statistics data on the number of 11th grade graduates and enrollment in universities have been converging in recent years: in 2000, the graduation rate was 1.5 million schoolchildren, the enrollment rate was 1.3 million students. Russian legislation establishes that at least 170 students per 10 thousand population must study free of charge. In fact, in 2000, budget funds provided education for 193 students per 10 thousand people.
However, changes in the availability of higher education appear in a completely different light if we take into account changes in the structure of education financing and the quality of educational services provided. The growth in the total number of students was achieved mainly due to the expansion of paid admission. To enroll in free places at universities, parents of many applicants have to make informal payments. All this casts doubt on the conclusion that higher education is becoming more accessible.
The increase in non-state spending on education, although very significant, did not fully compensate for the reduction in state funding. This gives grounds for the conclusion that the quality of educational services has generally declined. The dynamics of indicators for the development of the education system in Russia in the last decade and numerous observational data indicate increasing differentiation of higher education services in terms of their quality. Thus, significant changes have occurred in the ratio of training in full-time, evening and correspondence forms. The number of students using correspondence courses is growing at the fastest rate, especially in non-state universities, where enrollment in correspondence courses in 2000 exceeded enrollment in full-time courses. Correspondence education is becoming increasingly important, its expansion is natural due to the relevance of the task of lifelong education; but it must be admitted that at present, domestic correspondence education, as a rule, is inferior in quality to full-time education. Meanwhile, approximately 40% of students are now studying by correspondence (in the early 90s - about a quarter).
Two subsystems have formed in the Russian higher education system: one of elite education, characterized by the high quality of services provided, and the other of mass higher education of low quality. Higher education of low quality can, with some assumptions, be called relatively affordable. Opportunities for obtaining an education that provides high-quality professional training for future specialists have apparently decreased for the majority of the population.
Differences in access to higher education are determined by differences between people in a number of characteristics, including:
- level of abilities;
- quality of general education received;
- volume and quality of additional educational services received (additional subjects in schools, university preparation courses, tutoring services, etc.);
- level of awareness about training opportunities in various specialties at various universities;
- physical capabilities (for example, the presence of a disability that does not affect the ability to assimilate knowledge, but limits the ability to participate in the educational process);
- family composition, level of education and social capital of its members;
- economic well-being of the family (income level, etc.);
- location;
- other factors.
Available research shows that factors of socio-economic differentiation very significantly limit the accessibility of universities for large sections of the population, especially universities that provide high-quality educational services. However, the greatest limitations arise due to differences in:
1) level of household income: members of low-income families have the worst opportunities for entering universities;
2) place of residence: residents of rural areas and small towns, as well as residents of depressed regions, find themselves in the worst situation; The differentiation of regions in terms of the provision of universities also influences the accessibility of higher education;
3) the level of general secondary education received: there is a differentiation of schools in terms of the quality of education, while a decrease in the level of training in some is combined with the presence of a limited number of “elite” schools, the quality of training of graduates of which is growing.
The level of family income influences the accessibility of higher education both directly, by determining the ability to pay for the education itself, and indirectly. The indirect impact is associated, firstly, with the possibility of implementing, in addition to the actual costs of training, the costs of travel to the place of study for non-residents, the costs of supporting the student’s life during training - costs of housing, food, etc. For most families living in rural areas and cities that do not have their own universities, the costs of travel for an applicant to the location of the university and accommodation in another city are unaffordable. Secondly, this influence is expressed in the dependence between the level of family well-being and social and human capital, which are inherited and act as factors in differentiating access to higher education.
The following categories of persons can be classified as socially disadvantaged in their opportunities for obtaining a quality education:
- graduates of rural schools;
- graduates of “weak” schools in different localities;
- residents of remote settlements and regions;
- residents of regions with weak educational infrastructure;
- residents of depressed regions;
- members of poor families;
- members of single-parent families;
- members of socially disadvantaged families;
- street children;
- graduates of orphanages.
- disabled people;
- migrants;
- representatives of national and religious minorities.
Problems of accessibility of general education in modern Russia
Problems of access to education concern almost the entire Russian society. These problems are discussed not only by scientists and officials from the education system, but also by teachers and parents. The reason is that education is increasingly considered by both the population and the governments of most countries of the world as an important economic resource that ensures successful self-realization, social mobility and the material well-being of the individual in the modern world. At the same time, the requirements that were and are presented to those wishing to receive an education are not always the same, which creates a problem of inequality, primarily associated with the accessibility of education and its quality for people of different socio-economic status, nationality, gender, physical abilities, etc. Principle equality of opportunity in education is about giving everyone, regardless of background, the opportunity to achieve the level that best matches their potential. Lack of equal access to education effectively perpetuates economic, social and cultural inequalities, preventing children from moving from the bottom to the top. There are several concepts of unequal access to education. This is legal inequality, which is considered as inequality of rights enshrined in law and socio-economic inequality caused by the socio-economic characteristics of various population groups.
The right to education (along with the right to vote) is one of the freedoms for which all peoples of the world have fought throughout their history. The right to education is enshrined in the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. In European countries, the right to education is part of the value system of a modern democratic state. Mass public schooling has become a fundamental condition for ensuring social justice, national prosperity, economic and social progress in society.
According to Russian legislation (Article 43 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), the state guarantees citizens universal access and free primary general, basic general, as well as secondary (complete) general education in state and municipal educational institutions within the limits of state educational standards. Formally, these guarantees are observed. According to the 2002 All-Russian Population Census, the proportion of children aged 10–14 years studying in general education institutions in cities and towns was 97.4%, and in rural areas – 97.9%. The proportion of the illiterate population aged 10 years or more in 2002 was 0.5%. These indicators indicate a fairly high degree of accessibility to education in the Russian Federation. For comparison: in India, the enrollment rate for children of the age in question is 65%, in China - 80.7%, in Canada - 97.2%, in the UK - 98.9%, in the USA - 99.8%, in France and in Australia - 100%. Structural changes in the political and economic life of Russia in the 1990s. affected all spheres of state activity, not leaving aside the sphere of education. The transformation of the country's economic structure has led to a change in the structure of demand for educational services. In recent years, demand for higher education services has increased significantly, which was accompanied by a reciprocal increase in supply. Both according to sociological surveys and statistics, the volume of educational services provided is expanding. The number of universities increased by 108%: from 514 in 1990 to 1068 in 2005 (of which 615 are government institutions and 413 are non-state institutions). The number and enrollment of students increased by 150% over the same period. These trends are typical for both state and non-state universities, and non-state universities have developed even more actively. The number of students studying on a paid basis at universities of various forms of ownership is increasing. In the 2004/2005 academic year, more than half (56%) of students studied on a paid basis (in the 1995/1996 academic year this figure was only 13%). Based on the above, one could draw an optimistic conclusion that education in Russia has become more accessible and in demand in recent years. In terms of the share of people with higher and postgraduate professional education in the economically active population, Russia is in third place after Norway and the United States; in Russia this figure is 22. 3, in Norway and the USA - 27.9.
For Russia, experts note discrepancies between the declared goals and real facts, indicating the inability of the education system to meet these goals. The formation of the economy of the new Russia was accompanied by a sharp and significant reduction in government spending on education. This led to the degradation of institutions at all levels of education. The deterioration of the material and technical base and human resources had a negative impact on the accessibility and quality of education.
The Russian education system does not ensure social mobility of the population, there are no conditions for an “equal start”, quality education today is virtually inaccessible without connections and/or money, and there is no system of social (grant) support for students from low-income families. The introduction of market relations into the field of education causes a growing degree of inequality among educational institutions, primarily higher education. Political and social changes, the development of democracy create favorable conditions for reforms, including in the field of education, but these same changes cause an increase in corruption, crime and other negative consequences.
The development of the non-state sector in the field of education and the official provision of paid educational services (including the use of paid forms of education in state educational institutions) in the context of ensuring equality and accessibility is ambiguous. In 2006, paid educational services were provided to the population for 189.6 billion rubles, or 10.4% more than in 2005. On the one hand, the development of a system of paid educational services expands access to vocational education through the introduction of paid vocational education, which has brought Russia to one of the leading places in the world in terms of the relative number of students in higher education institutions. But on the other hand, paying for education reduces its accessibility for the poor.
In the context of constant underfunding of the education system and the increase in its fees, the income and disposable resources of parents are a significant factor influencing the accessibility of education for children from different social strata of the population. The subjective side of the problem of accessibility is that almost all social groups are confident that education has become paid. Consequently, in public opinion we have lost one of the most important gains - access to high-quality free education for trained and capable children. Recently, problems associated with obtaining education have become more acute in the public consciousness - people increasingly believe that this important socio-economic resource is becoming less and less accessible. According to VTsIOM surveys conducted in 2007, half of Russians cannot afford paid education, 40% cannot afford paid medicine. In case of emergency, 42% of our fellow citizens will be able to use paid medical services, and 27% will be able to use educational services. Only 16-17% of Russians systematically have the opportunity to pay for such services.
The problem of its availability in modern Russia ceases to be exclusively a problem of socially vulnerable segments of the population; it affects almost the entire population. The social differentiation of modern Russian society creates unequal conditions for the social mobility of young people. The growth of differences in income and material security is inevitable during the transition to a market economy and plays the role of a stimulus for labor and business activity, but in Russia it turned out to be excessive, provoking an increase in social tension in society. The gap between the narrow rich minority and the poor majority grew from 4.5 times in 1990 to 14.5 times in 2003. Due to this factor, youth crime in the country has increased significantly. Young people who saw no other ways to take a place in the sun joined the ranks of criminals. Access to education services should alleviate the problem of poverty. The goal of equal access to education in the development of the modern Russian education system, despite the general increase in the educational level of the population, has not yet been implemented in practice.
We can say that, in fact, the public education system is developing in such a way that it ensures the reproduction and even strengthening of social imbalances in society. This inequality arises at the level of preschool education and subsequently persists and intensifies at all further stages of education.
In the course of monitoring the economics of education in the Russian Federation, estimates of the population's funds entering the system of general and vocational education were obtained. Analysis of family expenses, which include officially unregistered expenses, makes it possible to assess the processes leading to inefficient use of resources in the education system. Research results demonstrate how social inequality manifests itself in school and then in vocational education. This is most clearly manifested in the system of higher education, as the most competitive area, which accumulates all the shortcomings and problems of previous educational levels, and subsequently leads to deepening social differentiation and creates the preconditions for its reproduction.
The constitutional guarantees of providing all children of our country with free general education are mainly implemented in practice. However, parents who have a strong desire for their children to receive higher professional education and further social growth prefer, from the first grade, to send their child not to just any school, but only to a good school that provides a high level of socialization, i.e., the sum of knowledge, skills and target settings.
Unfortunately, schools of this kind are a scarce resource (the demand for high-quality general education services from the population exceeds the supply of these services by general education institutions). Therefore, children are admitted to them mainly on a competitive basis. The competition is a special filter at the transition stage “kindergarten – primary school” and is ideally designed to provide access to quality education for the most gifted children. In reality, the competition for access to a scarce resource involves not only the child’s abilities, but also the “advantages” of his parents - their high position in society or a high level of material well-being, combined with a willingness to use one or the other for the benefit of the school or its administration. This circumstance has an objective economic basis. A shortage of a good on the market due to the fact that the official price for it is lower than the equilibrium market price always leads to the emergence of a parallel existing “shadow” market for the good in question and the formation in this market of a “shadow” price higher than the officially established one.
Thus, despite the formal availability of general education in Russia, there is inequality of opportunities in obtaining high-quality school education, due to the socio-economic stratification of society. The main danger of this phenomenon is that, arising at the preschool filter stage, it can be preserved and subsequently reproduced at all further stages of education.
To estimate the expenses of Russian households associated with preparing a child for school and his enrollment in school, we use data from a representative survey of the Public Opinion Foundation conducted in 2004. As mentioned above, about 25% of families with preschool children of the appropriate age bear these types of costs. At the same time, approximately 21% of households purchase books, stationery and other supplies needed for school. The expenses of Muscovites in this case are 3,200 rubles per year, the expenses of a non-Moscow family are 1,300 rubles per year. Another 2.4% of families spend money on the necessary medical examination of the child (1,900 and 300 rubles, respectively); 0.3% of respondents pay for testing or an entrance exam to school (1,500 and 500 rubles, respectively).
As the child grows up, parents begin to seriously think about which school to send him to. Let's consider some of the results of a sociological survey of parents of preschool children, conducted in 2003 in 4 pilot regions. It is characteristic that if for children under 3 years of age about 30% of the parents surveyed say something definite about the characteristics of the school, then for children over 5 years of age almost 100% of parents already express their preferences. Moreover, if for parents of younger children only such characteristics of the school as a convenient location and good teachers are important, then for parents of children in the older age category, the opportunity to enter a good university after this school begins to acquire almost the same importance.
The territorial factor influencing the accessibility of quality education plays an important role. The existing economic differentiation between large cities (primarily Moscow) and regions, with limited mobility, leads to inequality in access to education. Many Moscow families begin to build educational strategies for their children from a very early age. 17% of capital residents invest in their child’s educational preparation for school. Of these, 12% pay official fees to various educational institutions (an average of 5,500 rubles per year) and 5% pay for the services of private teachers (an average of 9,400 rubles per year). In other regions of Russia, only 8.2% of respondents make similar investments. Of these, 6.7% pay official fees to various educational institutions (an average of 2,200 rubles per year) and 1.5% pay for the services of private teachers (an average of 3,200 rubles per year). Analyzing this segment of the educational services market, it should be noted that in the capital there is not only more demand for the services in question. Compared to other regions, their offer is larger and more diverse.
As it turned out during the survey, some of the parents (3.4% in Moscow and 1.2% in Russia) pay an official entrance fee when their child enters school. In the regions it is quite insignificant - 400 rubles, in Moscow it is significantly higher - 12,300 rubles. The practice of bribes and gifts for admission of a child to a good school continues, as such schools are becoming an increasingly scarce resource. According to indirect estimates, 8.7% of Moscow families and 1.7% of other Russians gave bribes for admitting a child to a school educational institution during the school year. At the same time, the average bribe for Muscovites was 24,500 rubles, and for residents of other regions – 6,600 rubles. Almost half of families (45%) are aware of the practice of informal payments for a child’s admission to a good school. Most of those who are familiar with this practice are in Moscow and St. Petersburg (67%). In small towns the share of such families is 40%, and in villages – 27%. From 40 to 50 percent of families are ready to pay in order for their child to enroll in a good school, while the shares of those who are “rather ready” in settlements of different types are almost the same, and the share of those “definitely ready” in Moscow and St. Petersburg is doubled higher than in villages (30% versus 15%, respectively)
In Russian general education institutions in 2003, the number of students per 1 personal computer was 46 people. And for 1 personal computer with Internet access, there were 400-440 schoolchildren. The PISA results, which are unpleasant for our national identity, are explained, in particular, by this lag in the field of modern educational technologies.
In 2003, during a sociological survey of teachers in 4 “pilot” regions, the degree of provision of teaching staff with the subjects necessary for work was studied. As follows from the teachers' answers, the provision of the educational process in general education institutions with the necessary means for normal work is insufficient. The most scarce resource is free Internet access: on average, 16% of the surveyed teachers are provided with it. Only 30% of respondents receive computer floppy disks and office supplies (notebooks, pens, etc.) at their place of work. But teachers need fountain pens every day to check students’ homework and give grades. Only half of teachers are provided with computers and professional literature at their place of work; 40% of the teachers surveyed are not provided with textbooks.
Moscow school teachers are best provided with the supplies necessary for work. In other regions, no significant differences are observed. Noteworthy is the fact that for most items the level of provision in rural schools is higher than the average for all types of schools. Apparently, this is explained by the fact that the total number of teachers in rural schools is significantly less than in urban ones. Therefore, each rural teacher receives a larger number of textbooks, stationery and copies of professional literature provided by the institution.
Only 20% of the teachers surveyed did not buy things necessary for work with their own money. The percentage of purchases of computer equipment and related products (floppy disks, CDs, Internet cards) is very small - from 2 to 13%. Combined with an insufficient level of provision of information resources at the place of work, this is an alarming symptom, signaling the unpreparedness of at least half of the teaching corps to teach schoolchildren in accordance with the requirements of modern information technologies. The reasons for this are the lack of computer literacy among many teachers (especially older ones), as well as the lack of financial resources from schools and teachers themselves to purchase modern office equipment (computers, printers), the cost of which is not comparable to the average salary of a school teacher. Most often, school teachers purchase stationery, professional literature and textbooks, spending almost 2/3 of their salary at their main place of work on this.
We have already mentioned above the existing trend towards a decline in the quality of general education in Russia. One of the reasons explaining this trend is the low level of wages. Although in recent years there has been a significant increase in the wages of school employees, it still remains quite low.
Low wages force teachers to look for additional sources of income. For the majority, this is either working in another institution, or tutoring, or sometimes increasing the workload by combining subjects. Then what quality preparation of schoolchildren for life in society, about mastering professional educational programs can we talk about if the majority of the teaching staff increases their income by increasing their working hours?
Consequently, today there is a developing trend of turning a school teacher into a technical school teacher, since he is increasingly becoming only a translator of a certain set of knowledge, gradually losing the educational function necessary for primary and secondary schools. Finally, more than 40% of part-time teachers give private lessons. Tutoring is another way to increase the monetary income of school teachers.
According to the results of a sociological survey of teachers in 6 pilot regions, conducted in 2004, the average salary of a school teacher at his main place of work is almost 9,300 rubles per month in Moscow, about 3,900 rubles in the regions, approximately 3,700 rubles in incomplete and rural schools. Thus, in 2004, teachers' salaries increased compared to 2003. 36% of teachers work part-time, most often through private tutoring. This additional work makes it possible to earn about 6,800 rubles per month in Moscow and 2,200 rubles in the regions. Employees of rural schools have the least amount of additional income (10%) and the least amount (600 rubles per month).
Uncompetitive income levels lead to an aging teaching staff. According to sociological surveys in pilot regions, the average age of teachers is 41-43 years. According to state statistics, in 2003, among 5th grade teachers, 15.7% were people over working age. Among teachers in grades 1-4, teachers over working age accounted for 10%. There are practically no young people in the system of general education institutions. The school is supported by middle-aged and retired teachers, as a result of which there is a certain conservatism in the knowledge of schoolchildren. Young professionals do not go to school to work. In the labor market in the education sector, there is a steady trend towards an outflow of workers from the industry.
The low level of income of employees of educational institutions gives rise to the practice of unofficial payments and gifts. Corruption relations in the school education system distort signals in the educational services market. An analysis of the monitoring results showed that approximately every thirtieth family in Russia (except Moscow) and approximately every twentieth family in Moscow unofficially paid at school for special treatment of their child. Underfunding of school teachers and their low motivation lead to the fact that there is no one to deal with the moral education of the younger generation.
The deterioration in the quality of the material and technical base and personnel of the general education system is largely a consequence of the insufficiency of its budget funding. Budget expenditures per student in the general education system in 2004 amounted to 16.65 thousand rubles.
Budget funds received by general education institutions account for approximately 50% of all budget expenditures on the educational system. At the same time, general education is almost entirely financed from the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local budgets. Expenditures on general education institutions from the consolidated budget amounted to 1.8% of the country's gross domestic product in 2004 and 1.5% of GDP in 2000. The share of budget expenditures on general education in the total volume of budget expenditures of the Russian Federation in 2004 was equal to 6.4% compared to 6% in 2003. But speaking about budget expenditures, it should be said that visible growth is not a qualitative indicator of an improvement in the situation with the financing of the general education system, since in real terms the volume of invested funds has remained almost unchanged. During the period under review, the Russian economy experienced fairly high inflation rates.
In addition, the volume of public funds flowing into the general education system is not always used effectively. For example, computerization and Internet connection of rural schools will not be used properly without appropriate qualified service. It is clear that each such school will require an increase in staff, and therefore a significant increase in costs. To attract qualified specialists to rural schools, it is necessary not only to pay high wages, but also to provide housing and other guarantees of social well-being. And at the moment, budgetary capabilities do not allow us to properly operate modern technology.
A significant portion of budget funds is allocated to the implementation of programs in high schools, the goals of which are not achieved. The heavy workload required to complete academic programs in high school almost becomes a burden for students. As a result, they ignore courses that are not related to their chosen major. Consequently, public finances are being spent for other purposes. It would be better to increase the efficiency of using budget funds by creating specialized areas in high schools and corresponding redistribution of finances.
Today, given the extreme stratification of property, Russians find themselves unequal, including in the opportunity to realize the fundamental rights proclaimed by the Constitution, equal for all - to education or medical care.
Thus, the school education market needs regulation - both from the state, and from the professional community, and from consumers. The school system lays the foundation for the overall process of developing future qualifications. And here, from the perspective of the needs of the economy, several general tasks are visible. One of the tasks of the school system is the availability of quality teaching, which in turn must meet the realities of life, modern technology and social needs and which depends on the prestige and status of teaching work, its remuneration, conditions, and the level of training of the teachers themselves. Independent quality control of the services provided is necessary.
Creating a competitive level of wages for workers in this field of education, increasing the authority of teaching, organizing quality control of services, and redistributing resources allocated to the general education system by households and the state will reduce losses to society. If the school continues to develop by inertia, then by 2010 school graduates will receive “pseudo-education,” which will contribute to the further development of corruption. In this case, it will be difficult to talk about ensuring equal access to education based on ability rather than financial opportunity.
Literature:
1. Education in the Russian Federation. Statistical Yearbook. - M.: State University-Higher School of Economics, 200 p.
2. Federal State Statistics Service, 2006
http://www. /scripts/db_inet/dbinet. cgi
3. Monitoring the economics of education. “Social differentiation and educational strategies of students and schoolchildren.” Newsletter No. 6, 2007
4. Economics of education in the mirror of statistics. Information bulletin, No. / Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, State University - Higher School of Economics. – M., .
5. Monitoring the economics of education. "Economic strategies of families in the field of children's education." Newsletter No. 4, 2007
1In a market economy, the problems of accessibility to higher education acquire particular significance, which are most relevant in countries oriented towards stable socio-economic growth and development, since it is within the framework of the higher professional education system that the country’s intellectual potential is created, competitiveness is ensured through the development and introduction of new knowledge-intensive technologies, and also due to the fact that in a market economic system the state does not guarantee higher education for all citizens. The article provides a definition of accessibility to higher education. Accessibility is considered as a socio-economic category, as it reflects socio-economic relations regarding the production and sale of educational services. Differences in opportunities for obtaining higher education are identified, on the basis of which a classification of types of accessibility to higher education is made: “economic”, “territorial”, “social”, “intellectual and physical”, “academic”; which helps to determine the priorities for the development of the education system as a whole in the conditions of innovative development of the country. Factors of each type of accessibility to higher education that have the greatest impact on the formation of intentions, desires and opportunities to obtain higher education have been identified.
accessibility of higher education
types of accessibility
factors of accessibility of higher education
1. Althusser L. Ideology and ideological apparatuses of the state (notes for research) [Electronic resource] // Magazine room: website. – URL: http://magazines.russ.ru/nz/2011/3/al3.html (access date: 07/05/2014).
2. Anikina E.A., Ivankina L.I. Accessibility of higher education: problems, opportunities, prospects: monograph. – Tomsk: Tomsk Polytechnic University Publishing House, 2010. – 144 p.
3. Ivankina E.A., Ivankina L.I. Material and intellectual accessibility of higher education in the context of sociological discourse // Bulletin of the Buryat State University. Philosophy, sociology, political science, cultural studies. – 2009. – Issue. 6. – pp. 88–92.
4. Dmitrieva Yu.A. Study of the accessibility of higher education in the sociology of education // Almanac of modern science and education. – Tambov: Certificate, 2007. – No. 1. – P. 82–83.
5. Availability of higher education in Russia / resp. ed. S.V. Shishkin. Independent Institute for Social Policy. – M.: Publishing house “Pomatur”, 2004. – 500 p.
7. Roshchina Ya.M. Inequality of access to education: what do we know about it? // Problems of accessibility of higher education / resp. ed. Shishkin S.V. Independent Institute for Social Policy. – M.: “SIGNAL”, 2003. – P. 94–149.
Over the past decade, a number of structural changes have occurred in the system of higher professional education in Russia, which led to the growth and strengthening of the following trends:
● growth in the total number of students;
● reduction in the number of higher educational institutions
● reduction in the value of education;
● discrepancy between the acquired professional qualifications and the needs in the labor market;
● reducing the role of higher education as a social elevator.
These changes call into question the quality of higher education, as well as its accessibility. The problem of accessibility to higher education is not new, but in recent years it has increasingly attracted the attention of researchers and social policy developers both in Russia and abroad.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify the types of accessibility of higher professional education and the factors that determine it.
Issues of higher education, in particular its accessibility, have received a lot of attention from both domestic and foreign scientists.
The following researchers studied the problem of accessibility of higher education in modern conditions, as well as tools for assessing accessibility in their works: E.M. Avraamova, E.D. Voznesenskaya, N.V. Goncharova, L.D. Gudkov, M.A. Drugov, B.V. Dubin, O.Ya. Dymarskaya, D.L. Konstantinovsky, M.D. Krasilnikova,
A.G. Levinson, A.S. Leonova, E.L. Lukyanova, T.M. Maleva, V.G. Nemirovsky, E.L. Omelchenko, E.V. Petrova, Ya.M. Roshchina, O.I. Stuchevskaya, G.A. Cherednichenko, S.V. Shishkina and others.
Among foreign scientists whose research object was also higher education and assessment of its accessibility, one can note such as L. Althusser, A. Asher, B. Bernstein, R. Bourdon, P. Bourdieu, D. Johnstone, R. Giraud, Zh. -TO. Passeron, A. Servenant and others.
However, despite the fairly high degree of development of the topic and the presence of a large number of studies, there is no common understanding of the term accessibility of higher education and the factors influencing accessibility. Having analyzed the work of researchers, it can be noted that there is no comprehensive approach to assessing accessibility factors; the problem is considered, as a rule, one-sidedly, without taking into account the influence of factors of different etymologies. In most cases, one can observe a combination of the concepts of accessibility of higher education and the opportunity to obtain higher education, when the accessibility of higher education is considered only from the standpoint of the material component. Let us note that this approach is very unproductive and does not allow for a comprehensive analysis of existing problems.
The widespread understanding of the accessibility of higher education as the opportunity to enter a university and fully study there becomes insufficient, since in reality it is not the presence of a diploma that is of paramount importance, but which university issued this diploma, and what knowledge and social connections the student received during his studies.
In this regard, the concept of “accessibility” should be interpreted as a socio-economic category. From this point of view, by the accessibility of higher education we will understand the accessibility of the main structural elements of higher professional education, namely higher educational institutions that provide high quality services, regardless of their organizational and legal forms, types and types, implementing educational programs and state educational standards of various levels and orientations, for the bulk of the population, regardless of socio-economic factors, as well as the availability of entrance exams, educational programs and educational standards from an intellectual point of view for the bulk of the population.
Thus, the accessibility of higher education in this work is considered from the perspective of a socio-economic category as an opportunity to choose a higher educational institution, enroll and successfully study in it among various social groups of the population.
The main types of accessibility to higher education and the factors that determine it are presented in the table.
First of all, it is worth noting a group of economic factors. These include the level of family income, fees for higher education (direct tuition fees, tuition fees), as well as associated costs for obtaining higher education, costs for increasing human capital. That is, in this case, paid education means the entire set of expenses borne by the student’s family. The expenses necessary to cover direct costs - payment for school, training, education at a university, and alternative costs - maintaining a child during education are taken into account. When examining these factors, attention should also be paid to such indicators as the number of budget places in universities, the number of places in dormitories, the availability and size of scholarships, the availability of programs, benefits for various groups of the population. It is necessary to take into account the relationship between individual indicators. That is, for example, an indicator in the form of the ratio of the number of places in universities to the number of potential students will be more informative than the same data considered separately. The availability of higher education is also affected by the ratio of state and non-state universities.
Also, the territorial factor, in particular the place of residence of the family, has a significant influence. Residents of rural areas have fewer opportunities to obtain higher education and are less competitive in entrance exams than residents of urban areas. To a greater extent, this is justified by the higher costs borne by families furthest from the location of the university where the student is (will be) studying. When studying this group of factors, you should pay attention to such an indicator as the number of universities in a certain territory.
A group of social factors also has an influence. These include the status of the family, the sociocultural capital of the family, in particular the level of education, and the qualifications of the parents of potential students. Such indicators as the number of children in the family, two-parent family or single-parent family, etc. are also important. A potential student’s admission to a university is influenced by the person’s social environment.
Factors and types of accessibility to higher education*
|
Economic availability |
Territorial accessibility |
Social |
Intellectual and physical |
Academic |
|
|
Factors of accessibility to higher education |
family income, family economic well-being, amount of savings |
region of residence |
nationality, gender, religion, values, norms, cultural differences, family composition |
physical, mental, mental state (health) |
type of educational institution, quality of education at previous levels of education, volume and quality of additional educational services received |
|
fee (cost) of education, expenses for higher education |
settlement size |
education, occupation, qualifications of parents and other family members |
inherited qualities |
awareness of training opportunities in various specialties at various universities |
|
|
relationship between the amount of expenditure on education and per capita family income |
level of urbanization |
connections between parents, relatives and friends |
the potential student’s own human capital (level of intellectual and physical abilities) |
availability of benefits, advantages when entering a university |
|
|
share of support in education costs |
number of universities in the region |
social status and level of adaptation to life |
received knowledge |
form of study (full-time, part-time, evening) at the university |
|
|
home library size |
level of “social justice” in society |
personal motivation for obtaining higher education |
university infrastructure (presence/absence of dormitories, their size, etc.) |
Attention should also be paid to the personal characteristics of a potential student, which undoubtedly affect the degree of accessibility of higher education for a person. These include characteristics such as health level, religion, gender, nationality, values, norms, etc. This list also includes the intellectual level of the potential student. And it directly depends on the quality of the knowledge acquired and on the level of teaching at school. These indicators are also related to the abilities and diligence of schoolchildren.
It is imperative to take into account that there is a correlation between many of the above factors. For example, if a potential student lives far from the university, in a rural area (territorial accessibility factor), and there is no place in the dormitory (one of the academic accessibility factors), then it will be necessary to rent an apartment (associated costs, economic accessibility factor). Which ultimately will further aggravate and strengthen the problem of accessibility of higher education for this category of students or students in a similar situation.
Thus, the degree of accessibility of higher education can vary significantly depending on the influencing factors, many of which are closely interconnected and capable of reinforcing each other (both positively and negatively) or, conversely, smoothing out this influence.
Thus, the factors influencing the accessibility of higher education are:
● economic (family income, economic well-being, amount of savings, cost of studying at a university, number of budget places, share of support in education costs, etc.);
● territorial (place of residence, level of urbanization, number of universities in a certain territory, etc.);
● social (social and cultural capital of the family, family status, level of education of parents, social environment, number of children in the family, etc.);
● intellectual and physical (personal characteristics of a potential student, in particular the level of his physical and intellectual abilities, his own human capital, etc.);
● academic (the ratio of the number of places in universities to the number of potential students, the quality of knowledge acquired at previous levels of education, the form of study at the university, etc.).
In general, if we take each of the above factors separately, then none of them is predetermining in the formation of the intention or desire to obtain a higher education, but in combination they give a total effect that determines the motivation and, most importantly, the practice of accumulating opportunities for entering university
The study was carried out with the financial support of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation within the framework of the research project of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation (Ensuring accessibility of higher education and improving its quality in the context of innovative transformations in Russia), project No. 14-32-01043a1.
Reviewers:Nekhoroshev Yu.S., Doctor of Economics, Professor, Consulting Professor of the Department of Economics, National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk;
Kazakov V.V., Doctor of Economics, Professor of the Department of Finance and Accounting, National Research Tomsk State University, Tomsk.
The work was received by the editor on December 10, 2014.
Bibliographic link
Anikina E.A., Lazarchuk E.V., Chechina V.I. AVAILABILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AS A SOCIO-ECONOMIC CATEGORY // Fundamental Research. – 2014. – No. 12-2. – P. 355-358;URL: http://fundamental-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=36232 (access date: 10/30/2019). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"
I also break spears here. The majority of the population (according to the results of a study by A.G. Levinson) continues to believe that education, including higher education, should be free. But in fact, more than 46% of the total number of students in state universities already pays. Today, 57% are studying in their first year at state universities on a paid basis. If we take into account the contingent of non-state universities, it turns out that in Russia currently every second student pays for higher education (in fact, 56% of Russian students already study on a paid basis). At the same time, the cost of training, both in the state and non-state sectors of higher education, is constantly growing.
Already in 2003, tuition fees at state universities exceeded tuition fees at non-state universities. At prestigious higher education institutions, tuition fees can exceed the average by 2-10 times, depending on the type of university and specialty, as well as the location of the institution.
Families spend significant amounts of money not only on studying at a university, but also on entering higher education. According to sociological research, families spend about 80 billion rubles on the transition from school to university. This is a lot of money, so changing the rules for admission to universities (for example, introducing a unified state exam - Unified State Exam) will inevitably affect someone's material interests. Of the above amount, the largest share comes from tutoring (approximately 60%). It is unlikely that tutoring in itself can be considered an absolute evil. Firstly, it was, for example, back in Tsarist Russia, was practiced in Soviet times, and has flourished in the present. Secondly, with mass production - and modern education is mass production - the need for individual adjustment of a product or service to the needs of the consumer is inevitable. This is precisely the normal role of a tutor.
But in recent years, for many tutors (although by no means for all), this role has significantly transformed: it began to consist in the fact that the tutor was not so much supposed to teach something as part of the school curriculum, and not even so much to give knowledge in accordance with the requirements are no longer of universities, but of a specific university, how to ensure admission to the chosen university. This meant that payment was taken not for providing knowledge and skills, but for certain information (about the features of exam tasks, for example, or how to solve a specific problem) or even for informal services (trouble, follow up, etc.). Therefore, it became necessary to hire a tutor only and exclusively from the educational institution where the child was going to enroll (this applies both to the provision of some exclusive information and to the provision of informal services). This does not mean that admission to all universities was necessarily associated with tutors or informal relationships, but it became more and more difficult to enter prestigious universities or prestigious specialties without appropriate “support.” In general, the idea began to emerge that a good education at school was no longer enough to enter the university that allowed one to hope for a successful professional career in the future.
Sociological studies have shown that parents are still inclined to believe that “you can study at a well-known university for free, but it is no longer possible to enter it without money.” An alternative to money is connections. In a “regular” university, there may still be enough knowledge itself, but the knowledge itself is already differentiated into just knowledge, and knowledge taking into account the requirements of a “specific university.” And this knowledge is only provided either by university courses or, again, by tutors.
38.4% of applicants focus only on knowledge. At the same time, focusing only on knowledge during admission in this context means that the applicant and his family are not inclined to enter into informal relationships in order to enter a university. But this does not at all indicate that such applicants will not resort to the services of tutors, it’s just that the perception of a tutor in this case is different - this is a person (a teacher or university lecturer, just a certain specialist) who imparts knowledge, and does not “help with admission” .
The focus on knowledge and money and/or connections among 51.2% of applicants indicates that the applicant (his family) believes that knowledge alone may not be enough, and that one must secure himself either with money or connections. In this case, the tutor performs a dual role - he must both teach and provide support to his client upon admission. The forms of this support can be different - from contacting the right people to transferring money. Sometimes, however, a tutor can only teach, and intermediaries for transferring money are sought independently of him. And finally, the third category of applicants openly rely only on money or connections. In this case, a tutor can also be hired, but his payment is the actual mechanism of payment for admission: this is the person who pushes into the university - we are no longer talking about the transfer of knowledge.
The extremely high proportion of those who consider it necessary to use money and connections when entering a university (more than 2/3) indicates that persistent clichés are emerging in public opinion about which university you can enter “without money” and which “only with money or connections.” Accordingly, admission strategies are built, a choice of university is made, and ideas about the accessibility or inaccessibility of higher education among various groups of the population are formed. It is characteristic that the concept of accessibility is increasingly complemented by the words “quality education”. In this context, what is significant is not that higher education has become accessible at all, but that certain segments of it have become even more inaccessible.
career fee education
3. The role of the Unified State Exam in the accessibility of higher education
Because of this, the unified state exam should and will be perceived in society in an extremely ambiguous manner. The idea of the Unified State Exam as a tool for fighting corruption in entrance exams or tutoring (which is far from the same thing) does not exhaust even a small fraction of the understanding (or misunderstanding) of this instrument. When they say that the Unified State Exam increases the accessibility of higher education, then in a situation where it has already become accessible, this statement is of little value. The most important is the answer to the question of who exactly and what kind of education will become available as a result of the introduction of the Unified State Exam. It is obvious that a prestigious education will never be enough for everyone - that’s why it is prestigious (which includes a certain restriction of access). It will also not be possible to create mass good higher education in a short time (and in Russia over 15 years the number of university students has grown 2.4 times). The process of massification of higher education is proceeding in the country at an unprecedentedly rapid pace (similar processes in the republics of the former USSR, as well as other countries with transition economies, have not yet acquired such a scale), and the quality of education in its traditional sense will inevitably fall in these conditions. Therefore, if earlier it was possible to talk about fixing a certain quality and expanding accessibility, now the achieved level of accessibility must be ensured with at least some acceptable quality. Moreover, given the limited budgetary funds and the effective demand of the population, this task cannot be solved simultaneously for the entire higher education system. It would be more practical and fair to legitimize the differentiation of universities, especially since at the moment the fact that they differ in the quality of education is known to everyone. It is the explicit recording of differences in the quality of the educational program that could become the basis for posing the problem of accessibility, since the question would no longer be posed about the accessibility of higher education in general, but in relation to a specific category of higher educational institutions. But to legitimize the differentiation of universities by prestige or the quality of the educational program (which, generally speaking, does not always coincide) means at the same time to legitimize differences in their budget financing. They - these differences - exist today, but they are informal (exclusive). Making them formal and clearly defined means, on the one hand, to consolidate some rules of the game, and on the other, to clearly spell out the responsibilities of those universities that find themselves at the top. In other words, formalization will affect the rights and responsibilities of the parties, but whether the parties are ready for this is a big question. The idea of GIFO - state registered financial obligations - no matter how controversial it may be in itself, this problem allowed us to fix it extremely clearly: many prestigious universities, to which all applicants would come even with the highest category of GIFO - 1st category, would not receive those budget funds they currently receive. And, besides, it could have turned out that they would have come with lower GIFO categories, which would have jeopardized the financial well-being of these universities.
At the same time, the lack of formalization of differences in the status of universities leads to the fact that teachers of even very prestigious educational institutions receive very small salaries, and tutoring for them becomes an almost obligatory means of remaining to teach at a university. Our calculations show that on average a tutor receives about 100-150 thousand rubles per year. or approximately 8-12 thousand rubles. per month. Considering that the budget salary of even a professor is on average 5.5 thousand rubles, we find that the tutoring “add-on” provides an income for a university teacher slightly higher than the average salary in industry or the average salary in an industry such as non-ferrous metallurgy. Naturally, in this sector prices and incomes are extremely differentiated.
If you look at the Unified State Exam problem from these positions, it will appear from a slightly different perspective. Already now, during the experiment on a unified exam, activities have begun
