Release:
2021, Vol. 7. № 2 (26)About the authors:
Lyudmila A. Osmuk, Dr. Sci. (Soc.), Professor, Director of the Institute of Social Technologies, Head of the Department of Social Work and Social Anthropology, Novosibirsk State Technical University; osmuk@mail.ru; ORCID:0000-0002-4896-3055Abstract:
From a sociological point of view, the article examines the problem of differentiation of Russian schools, which came in the post-Soviet era to replace the relative equality of educational opportunities. The differentiation of schools, presumably, did not lead to the differentiation of Russian teachers. In general, there are few studies comparing schools and teachers in different schools by any parameter. The everyday practices of teachers are also poorly studied by both sociology and social psychology and social pedagogy. The current moment of time is unique because the restrictions introduced during the pandemic have created new conditions for the work of educational institutions. In this regard, it was decided to study the differences in the attitude of school teachers that have the status of a gymnasium or lyceum, and schools that do not have such a status, to the conditions and opportunities for the manifestation of activity and initiatives, as well as differences in the practices of professional activity, including during pandemics. The research method is a questionnaire survey. The empirical object was the teachers of the middle and senior level of secondary schools in the city of Novosibirsk. Differences in teachers› perception of conditions and opportunities for the manifestation of activity were revealed, as well as differences in the practices of manifestation of activity, indicating a more favorable situation in gymnasiums and lyceums than in schools. There were no types of teacher activity in which school teachers would be more active than teachers of gymnasiums and lyceums. A common problem for teachers in both types of educational institutions is overload, which is felt more strongly by teachers in gymnasiums and lyceums. The possibilities of attracting outside organizations of specialists to the school are discussed as a solution to the problem of teacher overload and elimination of inequality of opportunities.
Keywords:
References:
Ivanyushina V. A., Aleksandrov D. A. 2016. “Is there a differentiation of teachers in Russian schools?” Sociological research, no. 9, pp. 59-65. [In Russian]
Ivanyushina V. A., Maslinsky K. A., Aleksandrov D. A. 2017. “Russian teachers today and tomorrow: research results”. Public education, no. 6-7 (1463), pp. 24-32. [In Russian]
Ivanyushina V. A., Williams E. P. 2019. “Tracking, school mobility and educational inequality”. Education Issues, no. 4, pp. 47-70. [In Russian]
Konstantinovskii D. L. (ed.). 2011. Education and life trajectories of youth: 1998-2008. Moscow: TsSPiM. 296 p. [In Russian]
Konstantinovskiy D. L. 2012. “Qualitative education: resource and its use”. Reforming Russia, no. 11, pp. 202-212. [In Russian]
Kosaretsky S. G., Grunicheva I. G., Goshin M. E. 2016. “Educational policy of Russia in the late 1980s — early 2000s: declarations and practical impact on inequality in general education”. World of Russia. Sociology. Ethnology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 115-135. [In Russian]
Osipov A. M., Matveeva N. A., Boyadzhieva P. A., Vorontsov Ya. A. 2020. “Russian education in the paper abyss: the experience of sociological analysis”. Sociological research,k vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 60-70. [In Russian]
Report on the results of the international research of the teaching staff on teaching and learning TALIS-2018 (Teaching and Learning International Survey). Part 1. Continuous education of teachers and school principals. Moscow, 2019. 41 p. Accessed on 7 April 2021. https://fioco.ru/Media/Default/Documents/TALIS/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB % D1% 8C% D0% BD% D1% 8B% D0% B9% 20% D0% BE% D1% 82% D1% 87% D0% B5% D1% 82% 20 TALIS-2018.pdf [In Russian]
Polyakov S. D. 2017. “Daily activities of a school teacher: Research experience”. Continuing education: XXI century, no. 3 (19), pp. 6-13. [In Russian]
Robotova A. S. 2010. “On the responsible attitude to the teaching person and the concept of ‘teacher’”. Universum: Bulletin of Herzen University, no. 12, pp. 17-21. [In Russian]
Robotova A. S. 2016. “Why is it necessary to study pedagogical everyday life?”. Higher education in Russia, no. 4, pp. 99-109. [In Russian]
Robotova A. S. 2010. “Resources for improving the professional training of teachers (Article 1)”. Universum: Bulletin of Herzen University, no. 10, pp. 31-38. [In Russian]
Agranovich M. L. (ed.). 2016. Russian teachers in the light of research data: col. monograph. National Research University Higher School of Economics, Institute of Education; Edited by I. D. Frumin, V. A. Bolotov, S. G. Kosaretsky, M. Karnoi. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics. 313 p. [In Russian]
Federal Law of 29 December 2012 No. 273-FZ “On Education in the Russian Federation”. [In Russian]
Federal Law of 31 July 2020 N 304-FZ “On Amendments to the Federal Law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’ on the Education of Students”. [In Russian]
Frumin I. D, Pinskaya M. A, Kosaretsky S. G. 2012. “Socio-economic and territorial inequality of students and schools”. Public education, no. 1, pp. 17-24. [In Russian]
Cherednichenko G. A. 1999. “School reform of the 90s: innovations and social selection”. Sociological journal, no. 1-2, pp. 5-21. [In Russian]
Apple M. W. 2001. “Comparing Neo-liberal Projects and Inequality in Education”. Comparative Education, vol. 37, no 4, pp. 409-423.
Goodson I. F. 2011. “Developing life and work histories of teachers”. Life Politics. SensePublishers, pp. 117-129.
Hirsh E. D. 2010. “The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them”. New York: Anchor books a division of random house, Inc.
