Issue 9 :: IS THERE A DIFFERENTIATION OF TEACHERS IN RUSSIAN SCHOOL SYSTEM? - Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Home>Issue 9>IS THERE A DIFFERENTIATION OF TEACHERS IN RUSSIAN SCHOOL SYSTEM?

IS THERE A DIFFERENTIATION OF TEACHERS IN RUSSIAN SCHOOL SYSTEM?

Table of contents

Annotation Estimate Publication content

References Comments

IS THERE A DIFFERENTIATION OF TEACHERS IN RUSSIAN SCHOOL SYSTEM?

Annotation

PII

S0132-16250000392-7-1

Publication type

Article

Status

Published

Authors

Valeria Ivaniushina Send message Daniil Alexandrov

Edition

Volume 389 Issue 9

Pages

59-65

Abstract

Through the last 25 post-soviet years with the rise of economic inequality, Russian school system became highly stratified, and numerous studies have demonstrated that so called ‘elite’ schools (i.e. schools with advanced curriculum - gymnasiums, lyceums, specialized schools) are very different from schools with standard curriculae. The differences pertain to socio-economic status of students as well as to a number of academic outcomes: achievement on standardized tests, particularly Unified State Exam; percentage of students pursuing higher education; quality of chosen higher education institutions. However it is unknown whether teachers from standard and ‘elite’ schools do differ. We undertook our study to answer this question. Data and method: Data was collected in St.Petersburg in 2014-2015. In total, we surveyed 769 teachers from 39 schools (18 schools with standard and 21 with advanced curriculum) randomly selected from two city boroughs. The questionnaire included items on education and professional trajectories, social capital, self-efficacy and professional commitment, attitudes towards teaching profession and students, lifestyles, cultural consumption, sociodemographics. We used ANOVA for statistical analysis of differences between categories of teachers, and factor analysis (PCA) for multi-itemed scales. Results and conclusion: In spite of existing differentiation between ‘ordinary’ and ‘elite’ schools, differences between their teachers are almost non-existent and concern mainly cultural preferences. Teachers tend to stay in the same school for many years, horizontal mobility is rare. However, mobility between schools of different types occur as often as within the same type. It is important to emphasize that such essential characteristics as self-efficacy, professional commitment, attitudes towards students, disciplinary practices are the same for all teachers regardless the school type or socio-economic composition of schools. We conclude that professional group of teachers is not stratified. Results are discussed in the framework of educational inequality.

Keywords

teachers, self-efficacy, commitment, social capital, life style, cultural consumption, socio-psychological attitudes, school differentiation

Date of publication

01.09.2016

Number of purchasers

1

Views

471

Readers community rating

0.0 (0 votes)

Cite Download pdf

GOST	Alexandrov D., Ivaniushina V. IS THERE A DIFFERENTIATION OF TEACHERS IN RUSSIAN SCHOOL SYSTEM? // Sotsialogicheski issledovania. – 2016. – V. 389. – Issue 9 C. 59-65 .
MLA	Alexandrov, Daniil, Ivaniushina, Valeria "IS THERE A DIFFERENTIATION OF TEACHERS IN RUSSIAN SCHOOL SYSTEM?." Sotsialogicheski issledovania. 389.9 (2016).:59-65.
APA	Alexandrov D., Ivaniushina V. (2016). IS THERE A DIFFERENTIATION OF TEACHERS IN RUSSIAN SCHOOL SYSTEM?. Sotsialogicheski issledovania. vol. 389, no. 9, pp.59-65

References

Additional sources and materials

Zabaturina I.Yu., Kovalyova N.V. Chto my znaem o rossijskom uchitele? // Narodnoe obrazovanie. 2010. № 10. S. 36–42.

Zasypkin V.P., Zborovskij G.E., Shuklina E.A. Uchitel'stvo kak social'no-professional'naya obshchnost' // Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. 2015. № 2(370). S. 113–122.

Kovaleva G.S., Denishcheva L.O., Sheveleva N.V. Pedvuzy dayut vysokoe kachestvo matematicheskogo obrazovaniya, no ih vypuskniki ne speshat v shkolu (po rezul'tatam TEDS) // Voprosy obrazovaniya. 2011. № 4. S. 124–147.

Konstantinovskij D.L., Voznesenskaya E.D., Cherednichenko G.A., Hohlushkina F.A. Obrazovanie i zhiznennye traektorii molodezhi: 1998–2008 gg. M.: Institut sociologii RAN, 2011.

Lenskaya E. (red.) Rossijskie pedagogi v zerkale mezhdunarodnogo sravnitel'nogo issledovaniya pedagogicheskogo korpusa (TALIS 2013). M.: Izdatel'skij dom Vysshej shkoly ekonomiki, 2015.

Roshchina Ya.M., Filippova T.N., Gimpel'son V.E., Ushakov K.M. Professional'naya praktika uchitelej gosudarstvennyh i chastnyh shkol: cifry i fakty // Narodnoe obrazovanie. 2012. № 10. S. 61–65.

Sillaste G.G. Sel'skoe uchitel'stvo: obraz zhizni i adaptacionnyj resurs // Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. 2002. № 9. S. 50–59.

Sobkin V.S., Pisarskij P.S., Kolomiec Yu.O. Uchitel'stvo kak social'no-professional'naya gruppa. M.: Rossijskaya akademiya obrazovaniya, CSO RAO, 1996.

Federal'naya sluzhba gosudarstvennoj statistiki. Obshchee obrazovanie. URL: http://www.gks.ru/ free_doc/new_site/population/obraz/o-obr1.htm (data obrashcheniya: 08.07.2015).

Cherednichenko G.A. Shkol'naya reforma 90-h godov: novovvedeniya i social'naya selekciya // Sociologicheskij zhurnal. 1999. № 1–2. S. 5–21.

Uvarov A.G., Yastrebov G.A. Social'no-ekonomicheskoe polozhenie semej i shkola kak konkuriruyushchie faktory obrazovatel'nyh vozmozhnostej: situaciya v Rossii // Mir Rossii. Sociologiya. Etnologiya. 2014. T. 23. № 2. S. 103–132.

Yastrebov G.A., Bessudnov A.R., Pinskaya M.A., Kosareckij S.G. Problema kontekstualizacii obrazovatel'nyh rezul'tatov: shkoly, social'nyj sostav uchashchihsya i uroven' deprivacii territorij // Voprosy obrazovaniya. 2013. № 4. S. 188–246.

Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of self-control. Worth Publishers, 1997.

Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales // Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. / Edited by T. Urdan and F. Pajares. Information Age Publishing, 2006. P. 307–337.

Canrinus E., Helms-Lorenz M., Beijaard D. et al. Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity // European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2012. 27(1): 115–132.

Ford T.G., Van Sickle M., Clark L. et al. Teacher Self-Efficacy, Professional Commitment, and High- Stakes Teacher Evaluation Policy in Louisiana // Educational Policy. 2015. P. 1–47.

Hoyle E. Professional stratification and anomie in the teaching profession // Paedagogica Europaea. 1969. 5(1). P. 60–71.

Houtte M.V. Tracking and teacher satisfaction: Role of study culture and trust // The Journal of Educational Research. 2006. 99(4). P. 247–256.

Klassen R., Wilson E., Siu A. et al. Preservice teachers’ work stress, self-efficacy, and occupational commitment in four countries // European journal of psychology of education. 2013. 28(4). P. 1289– 1309.

Somech A., Bogler R. Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional commitment // Educational administration quarterly. 2002. 38(4). P. 555–577.

Talbert J.E., Ennis M. Teacher tracking: Exacerbating inequalities in the high school //Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Boston, 1990.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review

Translate