Yaroslavl, Yaroslavl, Russian Federation
Yaroslavl, Russian Federation
Yaroslavl, Yaroslavl, Russian Federation
Yaroslavl, Yaroslavl, Russian Federation
JEL A13 Relation of Economics to Social Values
JEL A14 Sociology of Economics
The relevance of the study is due to the fact that the time that has passed since the introduction of the unified state exam has been enough for its negative consequences to become apparent. When evaluating any social experiment, it is necessary to understand its social cost and consequences for the development of the state. The purpose of this article is to describe the social cost of the unified state exam for society as a whole and for the development of the educational potential of young people, in particular, as a factor in economic development. The study uses the method of qualitative sociology, including narrative interviews and written traditions. Based on the analysis of informants’ transcripts, problematic aspects have been identified in the assessment of high school graduates using such a form of control as the Unified State Exam (USE). General trends in the state and development of young people’s educational potential have been revealed. The need to abolish this form of control, whose disadvantages are not comparable to its advantages, has been substantiated. The authors conclude that the introduction of the unified state exam as a form of certification in secondary schools has led to the destruction of the secondary education system itself. As a result, the volume of knowledge in basic subjects has been significantly reduced, and students are found to lack knowledge in subjects that they do not take the exam in. There is a growing trend of inadequate communication, and school graduates are unable to write and express their thoughts effectively. This lack of knowledge is common among school graduates who choose various professions for further education. Admission to universities based on the results of the Unified State Exam has undermined such an important process as career guidance. The majority of graduates are focused on the number of points that will allow them to enroll in any field of study. The growing practice of tutoring has led to corruption, created an economic burden on families with schoolchildren, it has increased the factor of social inequality for those who want to pursue higher education. All of this has led to the destruction of the educational potential of young people as a factor of economic development.
educational potential, economic development, Unified State Exam, narrative interview, impromptu story, expert assessment, and traditional analysis
1. Andruschak G.V., Nathov T.V. (2012). Vvedenie EGE, strategii abiturientov i dostupnost' vysshego obrazovaniya // Voprosy obrazovaniya. № 3. S. 64—87.
2. Bolotov V. A. (2012). Usloviya effektivnogo ispol'zovaniya rezul'tatov ocenki obrazovatel'nyh dostizheniy shkol'nikov // Pedagogika. № 6. S. 39—45.
3. Borusyak L. (2009). EGE kak zerkalo problem rossiyskogo obrazovaniya // Vestnik obschestvennogo mneniya. № 3. S. 71—83.
4. Dergacheva L.M. (2009). Demonstracionnyy variant EGE: reshenie i metodicheskie rekomendacii // Informatika i obrazovanie. № 3. S. 10—22.
5. Kozyrin A. N. (2015). Obrazovanie i pravo na obrazovanie // Reformy i pravo. № 2. S. 45.
6. Lazebnikova A.Yu., Kotova O.A., Liskova T.E. (2018). Metodicheskie materialy dlya predsedateley i chlenov predmetnyh komissiy sub'ektov Rossiyskoy Federacii po proverke vypolneniya zadaniy s razvernutym otvetom ekzamenacionnyh rabot EGE 2018 goda. Obschestvoznanie. Metodicheskie rekomendacii po ocenivaniyu vypolneniya zadaniy EGE s razvernutym otvetom. M. 68 s.
7. Luchin V. O. (2002). Konstituciya Rossiyskoy Federacii. Problemy realizacii. M.: YuNITI-DANA. S. 196.
8. Nabiev V. Sh. (2011). Osnovopolagayuschie harakteristiki lichnosti v novom obrazovatel'nom formate vuza // Vysshee obrazovanie segodnya. № 1. S. 69—71.
9. Prahov I.A., Yudkevich M.M. (2012). Vliyanie dohoda domohozyaystv na rezul'taty EGE i vybor VUZa // Voprosy obrazovaniya. № 1. S. 126—147.
10. Prahov I. A. (2014). Vliyanie investiciy v dopolnitel'nuyu podgotovku na rezul'taty EGE // Voprosy obrazovaniya. № 3. S. 74—99.
11. Reshetnikova K.V., Efendiev A.G. (2004). Pervye rezul'taty EGE: analiz social'nyh posledstviy i tendenciy // Voprosy obrazovaniya. № 2. S. 288—311.
12. Sergeev A. L. (2013). Reforma obrazovaniya v Rossii: problemy i perspektivy // Konstitucionnoe i municipal'noe pravo. № 9. S. 28.
13. Sergeev A.L. (2016). Rossiyskaya gosudarstvennost' v HHI veke: osnovnye problemy. M.: Prospekt. 174 s.
14. Slovar' inostrannyh slov (1989). 18-e izd., ster. M.: Russkiy yazyk. 624 s.
15. Bangert-Drowns R.L., Kulik J. A., Kulik C.-L.C. (1983). Effects of Coaching Programs on Achievement Test Performance. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 571—585.
16. Davis-Kean P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: the indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of family psychology, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 294—304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294
17. Domingue B., Briggs D. C. (2009). Using Linear Regression and Propensity Score Matching to Estimate the Effect of Coaching on the SAT. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 12—29.
18. Eide E., Goldhaber D., Brewer D. (2004). The teacher labour market and teacher quality. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 230—244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grh013
19. Hanushek E. A., Rivkin S. G. (2006). Teacher quality. In: Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol. 2, pp. 1051—1078.
20. Hanushek E. A., Piopiunik M., Wiederhold S. (2014). The value of smarter teachers: International evidence on teacher cognitive skills and student performance. Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Papers Series, No. 14-06, pp. 1—32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w20727
21. Jez S. J., Wassmer R. W. (2015). The impact of learning time on academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 284—306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513495275
22. Powers D. E. (1993). Coaching for the SAT: A Summary of the Summaries and an Update. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 24—30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00530.x
23. Powers D. E., Rock D. A. (1999). Effects of Coaching on SAT I: Reasoning Test Scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 93—118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1999.tb00549.x
24. Rockoff J. E., Jacob B. A., Kane T. J., Staiger D. O. (2011). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one? Education, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 43—74.
25. Schutze F. (1982). Narrative Reprasentation kollektiver Schicksalbetroffenheit. In: Erzahlforschung: Ein Symposium. Stuttgart, pp. 29—38.
26. Woessmann L. (2003). Schooling resources, educational institutions and student performance: the international evidence. Oxford bulletin of economics and statistics, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 117—170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.00045
