ISSN 0798 1015
ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 38 (Nº 25) Year 2017. Page 15
Olga V. ROGACH 1; , Elena V. FROLOVA 2; Natalia V. MEDVEDEVA 3;Tatyana M. RYABOVA 4; Maxim S. KOZYREV 5
Received: 09/03/2017 • Approved: 15/04/2017
3. Characteristics of “state and public management of education”
ABSTRACT: Within this article the authors put a question of determination of a form and nature of participation of target groups of the public in management of domestic education and, as a result, possibilities of society to make real impact on a vector of the state educational policy. The object of research is modern practice of administration of public education in Russia. The subject of research is the state and public management of education. The methodological base of research was constituted by general scientific methods of research (the analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction), the system analysis, the comparative analysis, the analysis of documents and questionnaire. During the research, he authors also used the method of the included supervision. The authors applied the concept of “state and public management of education”. The authors estimate the difference between the proportions of the state and public “component” in the state and public management. They also conclude that it’s necessary to form this process in the following analytical framework: information – actions of state bodies of management – creation of the relations of social partnership. Relying on results of the conducted research, the authors draw a conclusion about absence of state public nature of real management practice in the field of education and availability of separate attempts of educational institutions to adopt perspective forms of expansion of democratic principles in management. |
RESUMEN: En este artículo los autores plantean una cuestión de determinación de la forma y naturaleza de la participación de los públicos destinatarios en la gestión de la educación nacional y, en consecuencia, las posibilidades de la sociedad para hacer un impacto real en un vector de la política educativa estatal. El objeto de la investigación es la práctica moderna de la administración de la educación pública en Rusia. El tema de la investigación es el estado y la gestión pública de la educación. La base metodológica de la investigación estuvo constituida por métodos científicos generales de investigación (análisis, síntesis, inducción y deducción), análisis de sistemas, análisis comparativo, análisis de documentos y cuestionarios. Durante la investigación, los autores también utilizaron el método de la supervisión incluida. Los autores aplicaron el concepto de "gestión estatal y pública de la educación". Los autores estiman la diferencia entre las proporciones del estado y el "componente" público en el estado y en la gestión pública. También concluyen que es necesario formar este proceso en el siguiente marco analítico: información - acciones de los órganos estatales de gestión - creación de las relaciones de asociación social. Basándose en los resultados de la investigación realizada, los autores sacan una conclusión sobre la ausencia de carácter público estatal de la práctica de gestión real en el campo de la educación y la disponibilidad de intentos separados de las instituciones educativas para adoptar formas de perspectiva de expansión de los principios democráticos en la gestión. |
Modern trends and global challenges facing Russia are stipulating substantial increase of the role of education in the social and economic development of the state. Besides, official state politics aimed at unlocking social and cultural, intellectual and economic potential of the state demands stable and flexible connections between the state and society in the process of solving strategic questions relating to development of educational field. Now we can see a substantial discrepancy between the potential of Russian system of education and the dynamic of social development. It leads to the crises in the interaction of the state and social structures (Frolova, Vinichenko et. al., 2016). It is possible to handle this situation only by means of expansion of social participation in the management of education applying modern technologies in teaching and learning (Kirilov et., al., 2016). Another important aspect is low level of demand for the graduates in the labour market, that shows the soft spot in the whole system of education (Vinichenko et. al., 2016).
“School is in the process of transformation. Against this background, some factors are becoming more and more urgent including possibility to give and to receive feedbacks, full interaction between the authorities and the society (Mersiyanova, Krasnopolskaya, Cheshkova 2013: 322).
The theory of human capital reveals different aspects of consolidation of efforts which the state and the society make, gives direction and content for educational politics. This theory is based on optimizing behavior in diverse fields of non-market activity including the field of education. A considerable contribution of this theory to the revelation of basic principles of state and public management has become ideas of internal norms which allow to assess efficiency of state investments in education ensuring priority of the social politics.
The theory of human capital considers the educational system as a socially oriented mechanism ensuring incessant interaction between education units: service providers (educational establishments), and learning service receivers (society). The state, as the subject of management of education, is set in the middle of this economic model providing adaptation of financial, professional, informational and other flows. Management of education includes very different aspects including management of processes in development of this system, its subsystems, structures and levels (Zborovsky 2010: 88).
Modern theory and practice of social and public management in the field of education is also based on the concept of welfare state. This theory combines technologies of state regulations and measures of encouragement of public initiatives by means of alignment of the purposes and interests of the state and public structures. Social partnership is an important part of welfare state aimed at forming state and public management (Frolova E.V., Medvedeva N. V., 2016). Such social partnership limits monopoly of central state apparatus allocating responsibility between the educational units.
Federal law “On education in the Russian Federation” guarantees state and public character of management in the field of education. It determines democratic character of management in education granting the rights of teachers, learners, parents (legal representatives) of underage learners to participate in the management of educational establishment [Federal Law, article 10]. This provision of the law supposes liquidation of state “monopoly” in the field of education, and combination of state and public regulation in education. However, there are no more detailed regulations of this question in the legal act. Nevertheless, there is one exception, that is professional and public accreditation [Federal law “On education in the Russian Federation”, article 96]. However, this procedure includes only assessment of educational establishment. It doesn’t lead to any legal consequences and it has only casual reference to management. Such legal gaps cause separated and fragmental character of state and public management in education. Now these mechanisms are defined by each educational establishment, apart from general trends and prospects of the development of Russian school.
This article is an attempt to make a critical re-evaluation of basic principles of state and public management in education aiming at answering the question: does modern practice of social participation in management reflect real possibility of target groups to influence the direction of the state politics, or it is only a mythic postulate of correspondence of management in educational field with current trends and prospects of social development.
In 2011, he authors conducted a pilot study: “Sociological analysis of management of innovative development in school education in Moscow”. Purpose of this study was to analyze influence of parent communities and activity of state structures. Information gathering methods: primary data collection was conducted by means of questionnaire of representatives of parent communities; expert questionnaire of representatives of educational establishments. The questionnaire of representatives of parent communities was based on multistage sampling. The first stage included area sampling (administrative districts of Moscow). The second stage was convenience sampling in general education institutions of Moscow. Sample size constituted 390 people, 35 people participated in the expert questionnaire. Multistage sampling: the first stage included area sampling (city districts), the second stage comprised convenience sampling.
In 2016, he authors conducted spot analysis of development dynamics of participation of parent communities in the management. The questionnaire of representatives of parent communities was based on multistage sampling. The first stage included area sampling (administrative districts of Moscow). The second stage was convenience sampling in general education institutions of Moscow. Sampling size constituted 410 people.
First of all, we would like to underscore that the idea to attract public structures to management in educational field is not new. The first attempts of systematized concepts on prospects of extension of social participation in management appeared in the middle of the nineties as a way of internal transformation of conservative system of education. The authors of the concept based on organizational and economic modernization of educational system in Russia [A.G. Asmolov and A. N. Tikhonov] suggested reorganizing educational system into democratic form of management, in particular, by means of establishing state and public councils which could reflect interests of learners, parents and expert structures. Moreover, “collegial form of management which includes participation of public structures can help overcome separation of a school from the society” (Farkhatdinov, 2015: 200).
At that time, his idea was not taken into consideration in the process of reframing foundation of the state social politics. However, increasing dissatisfaction of population with the current state of educational system, persistent critic of educational reforms, and decreasing level of education (that is proved by the independent international surveys) attracts more and more attention to the right granted citizens by law.
At the same time, practical attempts to establish public participation encounter with the lack of theoretical base relating to the questions of state and public management in educational field. Special attention should be paid to the questions of correlation between state and public presence in management, practicability of mechanical combination of state and public structures. Besides, lack of legal functionality, technologies and mechanisms to realize state and public management at all levels (starting from federal and ending with the level of educational institution) exert negative influence on practical realization of public participation in management.
On the one hand, the state encourages public participation in management, on the other hand, we can see that society itself has a considerably distorted understanding of this concept. It relates to the fact that educational institutions (the most interested party in development of democratic forms of management) define forms and methods of public participation in management on their own, as there is no legal base for these aspects of social life.
Especially wide-spread examples of such forms are administrative and supervisory boards, parents’ councils which have been giving financial and any other support for a long time. At the same time, they do not have any real opportunity to influence the policy of an educational institution. In this case, we can see substitution of the term “public management” and “management of a public self-organization” as the participation of the society in management relates only to a school, not to the field of education.
We should pay special attention to the fact that many problems of social and economic development are traditionally supposed to be connected with low quality level and inefficiency of management (Frolova and Kabanova, 2014, Baynova, 2016, Rogach et al., 2016). Work on a strategical forecasting, drawing up plans of development, arranging activity of management object, etc. demand special management skill, knowledge of tendencies, peculiarities of social development, special competence and qualification for solving social and economic problems. Targeted public groups (parental, pedagogical, or school self-administration) do not have management qualification and appropriate resource base (including resource authority), even considering that they are fully interested in increase of quality of education, their activity is not so effective.
Summing up all mentioned - above aspects, the authors suggest considering state and public management of education as consolidated efforts of state bodies and public structures of management based on a definite pattern of social interaction aimed at ensuring positively stable development of educational field.The authors suppose that the state guarantees its citizens availability and equanimity of opportunities for gaining good education by means of establishing unified educational field. Society put into practice the following functions:
Having studied functionality of state and public management of education in the capital city which can be considered as an example of innovative experience of realization of educational initiatives, the authors can conclude that even 5 years ago, controlling and regulative approach was a leading method of interaction between management structures and other subjects of educational field. Despite conservatism of the Russian management system in educational field, most of managers (more than 80%) already at that time admitted that it was necessary to elaborate new mechanisms, methods and forms of management influence to fulfill primary aims in the educational field. For the last period of time we can observe change of direction of management influence, increase of interaction (Frolova, 2016) that results in application of social technologies and mechanism of consolidation of efforts of the state and society in solving key problems relating to the development of educational field. However, according to the analysis of regulatory and legal framework, these initiatives do not have legal base: there are no vested right for functionality, rights, duties of the parties and consequences of possible risks for social partnership in education.
Exorbitant management bureaucracy of central apparatus decreasing the speed of adaptation of management system for transformation of conditions for realization educational policy, and necessity to meet the demands of international standards leads to the following results: 51.8% of employees of management structures assess their knowledge about projects, concepts, programs and educational reforms as rather low. It’s one of the reasons why society often has negative impression on the activity of the employees working in educational field making citizens have doubts about professional qualification of the government bodies and practicability of any state projects.
There is one more factor deteriorating this situation. Neither parental communities, nor educational management staff have equal understanding of the key term (“quality of education”) for the sake of which the state and society are going to consolidate their efforts. The employees of educational management bodies have put forward different criteria: high marks (55.4%); quality of education and training in an educational institution (63.4%); high level of skills and knowledge which the learners gain (10.7%); and 21.8% of the respondents didn’t know what to answer. At the same time, 63.4% of parent communities understand this term as the quality of education and upbringing; effectiveness of educational process – 15.8%; amount of that knowledge and skills which a learner gained – 13.6%; 7.2% were undecided. Lack of standard analytical criteria for definition of the term leads to the lack of principal aim. As the result, it does not allow unifying efforts of the state and the society to solve the problems of development of Russian educational system. It impedes to establish state and public management, as this unification of the state and public structures cannot be realized without clear sense of direction.
Besides, managers distinguish general position in comprehension of “quality” in education service of the secondary school. As they stated, it is “state development of educational field which is being realized nowadays” (54.4%), and “creating market of education service using innovative management mechanisms” (45.6%).
They also gave the following answers on a current state of educational field: critical state (4.1%), steady and stable state (32.8%); intensively developing state (42.8%). Summing up all the answers which the respondents have given, we can conclude that the development of the Russian educational system has positive dynamics, there is a complex of discrepancies. If this problem is not solved on time, it will lead to the crises of the whole educational field. Among the most complicated questions there were specified the following: citizens do not trust management bodies (68.3%); lack of bases to use social mechanisms of management (57.7%); low level of intercommunication with the subjects of educational field (51.9%); lack of capital of social cooperation and solidarity (36.2%).
We should pay attention to the fact that according to the representatives of parent communities, the level of satisfaction with the quality of education has been decreasing since 2011 (from 55.2% to 47.3%). The authors suppose that it relates to the reforms which have been realized at the level of educational institutions (integration of educational organizations of different types into educational complexes, applying practice of visiting teacher, double class supervision, etc). Due to such measures, nothing to wonder that parents are dissatisfied with the modern educational system. However, it’s important to underscore that their dissatisfaction shifts from traditional criticism of financial and technical bases of educational institutions (in 2011 it was the main reason for criticism) to unstable educational process caused by too great amount of new measures taken in this field and their quick alteration (46.8%); “inequivalence” of educational programs in different educational institutions (lack of standard educational pattern) – 45.4%. The representatives of parent communities are especially dissatisfied with necessity to spend rather significant sum of money for the education of their children (68.7%). It is called “additional fee” and has nothing to do with the payment for educational service. The results of other studies show similar tendencies: social inequality in educational system (Shpakovskaya 2015), negative assessment of those measures which have been taken by the government (Zhelezov 2009:206). Considering that the state is focused on extension of public initiatives, it seems to be inefficient to follow traditional solutions of the authorities to apply such structures as bureaucratic instances, which transmit instructions and orders to the structures of lower level, and control their following realization. Lack of competence of some employees in the government bodies, that influences the work of state and public management, as a function of governing board in education. Thus, in the course of the study, we got the following explanation: “Due to this new measure (state and public management), the function of control, coordination, planning and help is becoming stronger when it relates to collaborative efforts of state and public structures”.
Besides, in the course of the study, the authors revealed that parents’ level of participation in management was stably low. According to the statistics, less than one third part of the representatives of parent communities take part in management. We should underscore that parents’ rights to participate in management is limited by the format of educational institutions, and their participation takes form of activities within the frameworks of school councils, governing councils and school boards. Relying on the study, the authors revealed that those parents who do not take part in activity of social boards, mentioned several reasons for such attitude: formal (superficial) significance of public boards (62.1%); lack of time for work in public management boards (34.7%); lack of sufficient information on the process of extension of public activities, on opportunities to take part in activities of public social boarders (4.8%). It’s important to underscore that nowadays state and public management structures in education are encountering with the lack of appropriate “foundation”. “Citizens engaged in the activity of the School Governing Board, work almost as volunteers, without gaining money for it” (Pinsky 2004:32).
In the course of the study, the authors detected a positive tendency in the way of parents’ thinking. Increasing number of them admit that it is necessary to consolidate efforts of the state and the society to develop modern educational system. Moreover, more than a half of the respondents (52.7%) claim that it is highly important to devise ways for more effective participation of the society in definition of strategic landmark, unlocking potential of educational institutions. 46.6% of the respondents pay special attention to usage of mechanisms of social partnership in the development of state and public management.
Present situation is also complicated because parents are not ready to enforce their rights entitled in a new federal law “On education”, they don’t have enough time to participate in public management, and they don’t believe that public management can be fruitful. At this, the study detected positive tendency: increasing number of parents admit necessity to consolidate efforts of the state and the society to develop modern educational system.
Representatives of government bodies in education are also aimed at extension of public sector in management. However, as they don’t understand clearly essence and content of this concept within the frameworks of current conditions leads to the lack of well-developed mechanism of interaction between government and public structures, and necessity to create appropriate legal base for this sort of collaboration.
In the course of study, the authors bring up for discussion the following issues:
- State and public management in the field of education includes introduction of social innovations in modern principles of management. They are aimed at integration of principles and methods of social processes by means of self-regulation technologies (mechanisms of social partnership, usage of social and engineering methods for establishing prospective forms of social interaction in education, strengthening capital of social cooperation and solidarity);
- State and public management of education is integration of two directions. The first one is democratization of the activity of state governing boards by means of development of social unification and other forms of social interaction (Medvedeva and Shimanskaya, 2016); the second is establishment of public governing boards which represent interests of all targeted groups of educational process in a modern school;
- State and public management of education means coordination in the question on state and social “constituents” in modern schools. These constituents should be the following. The state ensures equal opportunities for gaining education of high quality. Social structures provide necessary information on social educational order, invest in educational field relying on contractual relationship, participate in definition of prospects for strategic development of educational field as a social governing board.
Relying on the mentioned - above aspects, the authors conclude that the process of establishing state and public management must be conducted within the following analytical frame: information – actions of state governing boards – establishing relations of social partnership. We underscore that actions of federal bodies relating to reconsideration of functions of state governing boards towards democratization must be based on surveillance studies of educational demands of population, social assessment of state regulation of education and other informational and analytical materials. It can help reconcile the interests of different subjects of educational field. Besides, proportions of state and public constituents, as well as participation of other targeted groups in management, are not constant. Balance between them should be found in accordance with the complex of interconnected demographical, social and economic, social and cultural, political and other factors influencing on the situation.
Relying to theoretical and practical elaboration of the questions on state and public management in education which we consider as a consolidated effort of the state and public structures based on the choice of appropriate pattern of social interaction aimed at positive and stable development of educational system, the authors conclude that the concept of state and public management is not being realized within the frameworks of current management system. Attempts of educational institution to realize prospective forms of extension of democratic principles in management allow us to conclude that society takes part in management of a school, not education. “Public management” is substituted with “management of a public self-organization”.
Besides, civil society cannot be a subject of state and public management under current conditions, as we don’t have firm, well-elaborated legal, methodological and technological base. Moreover, society is unable to a competent and qualified management subject.
The article is published with the support of grant of the President RF for state support of young Russian scientists MK-1265.2017.6.
Baynova, M.S., Kozyrev, M.S., Petrov, A.V. (2016) Correlation analysis of government influence on the selected aspects of Russian economy. Actual Problems of Economics, 182 (8): 334-343.
Farhatadinov N. G., Evstigneeva N. V., Kurakina D. Yu. and Malik V. M. (2015). Models od management of educational establishment under the conditions of reforms: experience of social; analysis. Questions of education, 2: 196-219
Frolova, E.V., Vinichenko, M.V., Kirillov, A.V., Rogach O. V. and Kabanova E. E. (2016). Development of Social Infrastructure in the Management Practices of Local Authorities: Trends and Factors. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(15): 7421-7430.
Frolova, E.V. (2016) Interaction of the population and local government: Problems and new opportunities. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, 4: 59-64
Frolova, E.V. and Kabanova, E.E. (2014). Directions and mechanisms of tourist attractiveness development of a territory. Actual Problems of Economics, 1(167)5: 297-305.
Frolova E.V., Medvedeva N.V., Kabanova E.E., Kurbakova S.N. and Vinichenko M.V. (2016). Social Partnership in Russia: Prerequisites, Problems and Trends. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, VII 2(16): 221-229.
Kirillov, A.V., Vinichenko, M.V., Melnichuk, A.V., Melnichuk, Y.A. and Vinogradova, M.V. (2016). Improvement in the learning environment through gamification of the educational process. IEJME - Mathematics education, 11(7): 2071-2085.
Medvedeva, N.V. and Shimanskaya, I.Y. (2016). Cultural heritage as a resource for socioeconomic development of territories. Actual Problems of Economics, 180(6): 253-259.
Mersiyanova, I. V, Krasnopolskaya, I. I., Cheshkova, A.F. (2013). Teachers community: self-organization and influence. Journal of Social Policy Studies, 11(3): 321-338.
Pinsky A. A. (2004). Public participation in school management. Questions of education, 2: 12–45
Rogach O. V., Frolova E. V., Kirillov A. V., Bondaletov V. V. and Vinichenko M. V. (2016). Development of Favourable Learnıng Envıronment and Labor Protectıon ın the Context of Harmonızatıon of Socıal Interactıon of Educatıonal System Objects. IEJME - MATHEMATICS EDUCATION, 11(7): 2547-2558
Shpakovskaya L.L. (2015) Educational demands of parents as the mechanism ensuring social inequality. Magazine of social politics, 2(13): 211–224
Vinichenko M. V., Makushkin S. A., Melnichuk A. V., Frolova E. V. and Kurbakova S. N. (2016). Student employment during college studies and after career start. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(S5): 23-29.
Zhelezov B.V.,Kudyukin P.M.,Shuvalova O.P. (2009). Efficiency of Educational system: opinion of a service consumer.Questions of education, 2: 187–210
Zborovsky G.E. (2010). Modernisation of education through social politics. Magazine of social politics, 1 (8): 87-104
1. Russian State Social University, 4, Bldg. 1, Wilhelm Pieck Street, Moscow, 129226, Russian Federation
2. Russian State Social University, 4, Bldg. 1, Wilhelm Pieck Street, Moscow, 129226, Russian Federation
3. Russian State Social University, 4, Bldg. 1, Wilhelm Pieck Street, Moscow, 129226, Russian Federation
4. Russian State Social University, 4, Bldg. 1, Wilhelm Pieck Street, Moscow, 129226, Russian Federation. Email: tani-87@inbox.ru
5. Russian State Social University, 4, Bldg. 1, Wilhelm Pieck Street, Moscow, 129226, Russian Federation