Regional Differences in Educational Outcomes of Russian Students in PISA 2018: A Socio-Spatial Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/2078-838X-2022-3-49-60Abstract
The results of the international study PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) have long been in the focus of the educational policy of many countries and become the basis for recommendations to educational organizations. However, often these recommendations do not consider the within-country context and regional differences in the landscape of educational inequality. This study is done in the framework of the sociospatial concept of Pierre Bourdieu. The aim of the article is to identify and describe the scale of regional differences in the educational results of Russian school students in PISA-2018 and their relationship with the cultural and social capital of students and those indicators of the social space of the school that are the focus of the PISA recommendations for educational policy. Data analysis was performed using a series of linear regressions with cluster standard error correction. The results show that the landscapes of educational inequality in Russian regions vary. Regional differences in reading literacy of students were comparable with 2.4 years of study, in mathematical literacy - with 1.6 years of study. For indicators of the cultural and social capital of students, the largest regional differences are observed both in the distribution of these capitals and in their connection with the educational results of students. The indicators of social space vary less between regions, however, the patterns of their relationship with the results are also different. Finally, the practices of teaching reading that students from different subjects of the Russian Federation face are almost identical. But even in this case, their similar use may not show the expected increase in points in the case of a particular region. The results obtained cast doubt on the effectiveness of the universal conclusions and recommendations of PISA, which do not consider local contexts, especially in the case of Russia as a country with a very extensive and diverse territory. This creates new challenges related to the reassessment of the validity of nationwide recommendations made based on the analysis of data from a small number of regions.Downloads
References
Bourdieu P. et al. (1984). A social critique of the judgement of taste. Londres, Routledge.
Bourdieu P. et al. (1999). The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society.
Buchmann C., Park H. (2009). Stratification and the formation of expectations in highly differentiated educational systems. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil., 27(4), 245-267.
Deming D. J. (2014). Using School Choice Lotteries to Test Measures of School Effectiveness. Am. Econ. Rev., 104(5), 406-411.
Duke N. K., Cervetti G. N., Wise C. N. (2016). The teacher and the classroom. Journal of Education, 196(3), 35-43.
Gallacher J. et al. (2002). Learning careers and the social space: exploring the fragile identities of adult returners in the new further education.Int. J. Lifelong Educ., 21(6), 493-509.
Grek S. (2009). Governing by numbers: the PISA ‘effect' in Europe. J. Educ. Policy, 24(1), 23-37.
Guo Y. (2014). Cross-cultural comparison of the school factors affecting students' achievement in mathematical literacy: Based on the multilevel analysis of PISA 2012. China Examinations, Vol. 10.
Hunter L. (2004). Bourdieu and the social space of the PE class: reproduction of Doxa through practice. Sport Educ. Soc., 9(2), 175-192.
Jaeger M. M. (2009). Equal Access but Unequal Outcomes: Cultural Capital and Educational Choice in a Meritocratic Society. Soc. Forces, 87(4), 1943-1971.
Kopfer A. (2022). Reconstructing Students' Appropriation of Space in Inclusive Schools in Austria and Germany Using Bourdieu's Theory of Social Space.Int. J. Incl. Educ., 1-17.
Kosunen S. (2014). Reputation and parental logics of action in local school choice space in Finland. Journal of Education Policy, 29(4), 443-466.
Kosunen S., Bernelius, V., Seppanen, P., Porkka, M. (2020). School choice to lower secondary schools and mechanisms of segregation in urban Finland. Urban education, 55(10), 1461-1488.
Kosunen S., Carrasco A. (2016). Parental preferences in school choice: Comparing reputational hierarchies of schools in Chile and Finland.Compare: a journal of comparative and international education, 46(2), 172-193.
Meroni E. C., Vera-Toscano E., Costa P. (2015). Can low skill teachers make good students? Empirical evidence from PIAAC and PISA. Journal of Policy Modeling, 37(2), 308-323.
OECD. (2019a). Balancing School Choice and Equity: An International Perspective Based on Pisa.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results (Vol. IV): What Makes a School Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices.
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results (Vol. IV): What Makes Schools Successful: Resources, Policies and Practices.
OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 Results (Vol. I): What Students Know and Can Do.
OECD. (2019c). PISA 2018 Results (Vol. II): Where All Students Can Succeed.
OECD. (2020a). PISA 2018 Results (Vol. V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools.
OECD. (2020b). PISA 2018 Results (Vol. VI): Are Students Ready to Thrive in an Interconnected World?
Perkins R. (2013). Hierarchies and learning in the conservatoire: Exploring what students learn through the lens of Bourdieu. Res. Stud. Music Educ., 35(2), 197-212.
Perry L. B. (2012). Causes and Effects of School Socio-Economic Composition? A Review of the Literature. Educ. Soc., 30(1), 19-35.
Reardon S. F., Raudenbush S. W. (2009). Assumptions of Value-Added Models for Estimating School Effects. Educ. Finance Policy, 4(4), 492-519.
Rojas-Torres L., Ordonez G., Calvo K. (2021). Teacher and student practices associated with performance in the PISA reading literacy evaluation. Frontiers in Education. Frontiers Media SA, 6, 658-973.
Tasaki N. (2017). The impact of OECD-PISA results on Japanese educational policy: TASAKI. Eur. J. Educ., 52(2), 145-153.
Tramonte L., Willms J. D. (2010). Cultural capital and its effects on education outcomes. Econ. Educ. Rev., 29(2), 200-213.
Waldow F. (2009). What PISA Did and Did Not Do: Germany after the ‘PISA-shock'. Eur. Educ. Res. J., 8(3), 476-483.
Yoon E. S., Lubienski C., Lee J. (2018). The geography of school choice in a city with growing inequality: The case of Vancouver. Journal of Education Policy, 33(2), 279-298.
Басюк В. С., Ковалева Г. С. (2019). Инновационный проект Министерства просвещения "Мониторинг формирования функциональной грамотности": основные направления и первые результаты. Отечественная и зарубежная педагогика, 4 (61), 13-33.
Бурдье П. (1993). Социология политики. М.: SocioLogos.
Бурдье П. (1998). Структура, габитус, практика. Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии, 1(2), 44-59.
Демидова М. Ю., Ковалева Г. С. (2011). Естественно-научная подготовка школьников: по результатам международного исследования PISA. Народное образование, (5), 157-165.
Капуза А. В., Керша Ю. Д., Захаров А. Б., Хавенсон Т. Е. (2017). Образовательные результаты и социальное неравенство в России. Вопросы образования, (4), 10-35.
Ковалева Г. С. (2011a). О международной программе PISA-2009 и одном из результатов по критериям: математическая и естественно-научная грамотность. Муниципальное образование: инновации и эксперимент, (1), 3-10.
Ковалева Г. С. (2011b). Результаты международного исследования PISA: качество образования. Школьные технологии, (4), 166-172.
Ковалева Г. С., Красновский Э. А., Краснокутская Л. П., Краснянская К. А. (2004). Результаты международного сравнительного исследования PISA в России. Вопросы образования, (1), 114-156.
Ковалева Г. С., Логинова О. Б. (2017). Успешная школа и эффективная система образования: какие факторы помогают приблизиться к идеалу? (По данным исследования PISA-2015). Педагогические измерения, (2), 9-80.
Кузьмина Ю. В., Тюменева Ю. А. (2011). Читательская грамотность 15-летних школьников: значимость семейных, индивидуальных и школьных характеристик (по данным российской выборки PISA- 2009). Вопросы образования, (3), 164-192.
Пентин А. Ю., Ковалева Г. С., Давыдова Е. И., Смирнова Е. С. (2018). Состояние естественно-научного образования в российской школе по результатам международных исследований TIMSS и PISA. Вопросы образования, (1), 79-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2018-1-79-109.
Пентин А. Ю. (2008). Что нам делать с PISA? Муниципальное образование: инновации и эксперимент, (4), 35-40.
Пьер Бурдье. (2005). Физическое и социальное пространства: проникновение и присвоение. Социология социального пространства. М., Центр гуманитарных технологий.
Тюменева Ю. А., Кузьмина Ю. В. (2013). Что дает год обучения российскому школьнику. На материалах PISA-2009: грамотность чтения. Вопросы образования, (1), 107-135.
Цукерман Г. А., Ковалева Г. С., Кузнецова М. И. (2011). Победа в PIRLS и поражение в PISA: судьба читательской грамотности 10-15-летних школьников. Вопросы образования, (2), 123-151.
