INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION: SOCIAL EXPERTISE IN FOREIGN AND RUSSIAN PRACTICE

The aim of the study – the comparative characteristic of the Russian and foreign practice of public expertise of the quality of general education for the scientific substantiation of its specificity as a social phenomenon and a tool to assess the quality of education.

Methods. The methods involve the reliance on the concept of public good, socially-relevant activities, revealing the social function and nature of education, and also the methodological principles of humanitarian expertise. Understanding and generalization of the contents publications on a subject (placed on the Internet and in periodicals) are designed on the basis of methods of a deconstruction, the problem and comparative analysis with search depth no more than 5 years.

Results. The analysis revealed a general trend of growth of attention to evaluation of education by the society under the influence of external (for education) factors. In Russia, this is due to a request from the state, change of the legislative base of education and is accompanied by a higher level of regulation. Objects of social expertise of education in Russia and abroad, as a whole, coincide –these are the aspects of quality, availability, openness of general education. Russian practice shows the offset of the target orientation of assessment from performing the monitoring functions in relation to school to formulating of cohesive positions to solve the problems of education, which is common for the practice of social expertise of Western countries. The value of foreign practice involves the diversity of customers, demand for public evaluation as a tool by the parent community, public organizations, and research universities.

Scientific novelty. The objectives, objects and subjects of an independent assessment of the quality of general education are clarified. Comprehensive theoretical basis for designing models of public expertise in the context, the development of scientific ideas and technologies in the field of humanitarian expertise are described.

Practical significance. The results and conclusions of the study have contributed to the development of the practice of independent evaluation of the quality of general education in different countries, increasing the demand for expert assessments by the state, society, and consumers of educational services.

1. Batrova O. F. Gosudarstvenno-obshchestvennyj kontrol’ i ocenka deyatel’nosti shkoly. [State public control and assessment of activity of school]. Narodnoe obrazovanie. [National Education]. 2010. № 2. P. 88–95. (In Russian)

2. Golosov O. V., Smagina V. V. Paradigma obshchestvennogo uchastiya v upravlenii i ocenke kachestva obrazovaniya. [Paradigm of public participation in management and assessment of education quality]. Vestnik Tambovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. [Bulletin of Tambov State University]. 2011. № 12 (104). P. 529–532. (In Russian)

3. Kaminskij V. S. Obshchestvennoe mnenie kak indikator ehffektivnosti gosudarstvennogo upravleniya. [Public opinion as indicator of efficiency of public administration]. Problemy razvitiya territorij. [Problems of Areas Development]. 2015. № 5 (79). P. 97–110. (In Russian)

4. Kuskova M. V. Obshchestvennoe uchastie v upravlenii shkoloj. [Public participation in school management]. Obrazovanie i sovremennost’. [Education and Today’s World]. S.-Petersburg; Tyumen: Publishing House TOGIRRO, 2012. 208 p. (In Russian)

5. Shtompka P. Doverie – osnova obshchestva. [Trust – a basis of the society]. Translated from Polish. Mоscow: Publishing House Logos. 2012. 440 p. (In Russian)

6. Anderson K., Minke K. Parental involvement in education: Toward an understanding of parents’ decision making. The Journal of Educational Research. 2010. Vol. 100. № 5. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/JOER.100.5.311–323. (Translated from English)

7. Bradley S., Taylor J. The report card on competition in schools. [Adam Smith Institute]. London, 2002. Available at: http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/images/uploads/publications/bradley-taylor-final.pdf. (Translated from English)

8. Crea, T. M., Reynolds, A. D., Degnan, E. Parent Engagement at a Cristo Rey High School: Building Home-School Partnerships in a Multicultural Immigrant Community. Journal of Catholic Education. 2015. Vol. 19. № 1. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.15365/joce.1901112015. (Translated from English)

9. Green F., Machin S., Murphy R. Yu Z. Competition for Private and State School Teachers. [Centre for the Economics of Education London School of Economics]. London, 2010. Available at: http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/ceedp94.pdf. (Translated from English)

10. Hakhverdian A., Mayne Q. Institutional Trust, Education, and Corruption: A Micro-Macro Interactive Approach. Journal of Politics. 2012. Vol. 74. № 3.Available at: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9639965/Mayne-InstitutionalTrust.pdf. (Translated from English)

11. Heyneman S. Education and corruption. International Journal of Educational Development. 2004. Vol. 24. № 6. Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Stephen_Heyneman/publication/44838168_Education_and_corruption/links/ 00b7d530294a187dbe000000.pdf. (Translated from English)

12. Hornby G., Lafaele R. Barriers to parental involvement in education: an explanatory model. Educational Review. 2011. Vol. 63. № 1. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00131911.2010.488049. (Translated from English)

13. Kellaghan T. Public examinations, national and international assessment, and educational policy. [Educational Research Centre St Patrick’s College]. Dublin. 2004. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTAFRREGTOPSEIA/Resources/paper_Kellaghan.pdf. (Translated from English)

14. Kohl G., Lengua L., McMahon R. Parent involvement in school: Conceptualizing multiple dimensions of their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology. 2000. Vol. 38. № 6. Available at:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2847291/. (Translated from English)

15. Sawiński Z. Zaufanie społeczeństwa do edukacji w Polsce i w krajach europejskich. 2013. Vol. 2. № 122. Available at: http://www.edukacja.ibe.edu.pl/images/numery/2013/2–4-sawinski-zaufanie-spoleczenstwa-do-edukacji.pdf. (Translated from English)

16. Stensaker B., Harvey L. Old wine in new bottles? A comparison of public and private accreditation schemes in higher education. Higher Education Policy. 2006. Vol. 19. Available at: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/hep/journal/v19/n1/pdf/8300110a.pdf. (Translated from English)

17. Thurston D. Leveling the Home Advantage: Assessing the Effectiveness of Parental Involvement in Elementary School. Sociology of Education. 2005.Vol. 78 (July). Available at: http://www.education.uci.edu/person/domina_t/docs/TD-SOE.pdf. (Translated from English)

18. Veronese G., Pepe A., Jaradah A., Murannak F., Hamdouna H. Quality of Life and Determinants of Parents’ School Satisfaction in War Contexts A Mixed-Method Exploratory Study in Palestine. SAGE Open. 2015. October – December. Available at: http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/spsgo/5/4/2158244015608422.full.pdf. (Translated from English)

19. Wilder S. Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: a meta-synthesis. Educational Review. 2014. Vol. 66. № 3. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009#.Vl15I9L hDs0. (Translated from English)

20. Williams B., Williams J., Ullman. A. Parental involvement in education. [Department for Education and Skills]. 2002. London. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4669/1/RR332.pdf. (Translated from English)

21. Willmott R. Education Policy and Realist Social Theory. 2002. [Taylor and Francis group]. London and New York. Available at: http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781134493548_sample_528821.pdf. (Translated from English)