REGIONAL DIFFERENCES in Educational Outcomes of Russian School Students in PISA-2018: A Sociospatial Approach

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 m 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.

1. Bojrdieu Р. et al (1984). A social critique of the judgement of taste. Lorcres, Routledge.

2. Bojrdieu P et al (1999). The weight of the wo'Id: Soc a suffering in contemporary society.

3. Buchmarn C., Pa'k H. (2009). Stratification and the formation of expectat ons in high у differentiated edjcat ora systems. Res. Soc. Strat f. Mobil., 27(4), 245-267.

4. Deming D J. (2014). Using School Choice Lotteries to Test Measures of Schoo Effect veress. Am. Econ. Rev., 104(5), 406-411.

5. Duke N К , Ce'vetti G. N., W Ise C. N. (2016). The teacher and the c ass'oom. Journal of Educat or, 196(3), 35-43.

6. Galacher J. et al. (2002). Learning careers and the soc al space: exp or ng the frag le icentities of acu t returned in the new fu'tber education. Int J. Lifelong Educ., 21(6), 493-509.

7. Grek S. (2009). Governing oy numbers:the PISA'effect' n Егоре. J Educ.Policy, 24(1), 23-37.

8. Gjo Y. (2014). Cross-cultural compar son of the schoo factors affect ng students’ achievement in mathematical literacy: Based on the multilevel analysis of PISA 2012. China Examinations, V o . 10.

9. Hunter L. (2004). Bourdieu arc the social space of the PE class: rep'ocuct on of Doxa through practice. Sport Educ. Soc., 9(2), 175-192.

10. Jaeger M M. (2009). Equal Access but Unequa Outcomes: Cultura Capital anc Educational Choice n a Meritocratic Society. Soc Foxes, 87(4), 1943-1971.

11. Kdpfe' A. (2022). Reconstructing Students’ App'opriat on of Space in Inclusive Schools in Aust'ia and Germany Using Bourc e u’s Theo7 of Social Space Int J. Incl. Educ , 1-17.

12. Kosunen S. (2014). Reputation and parental ogics of action in loca school choice space in Finland. Jourra of Education Policy, 29(4), 443-466.

13. Kosunen S., Berne: us, V, Sepparen, P, Porkka, M (2020). School choice to lower seconca'y schools anc mechanisms of seg'egat on in urban Finland.

14. U'oan educator, 55(10), 1451 -1488.

15. Kosunen S., Carrasco A. (2016). Parental preferences in school choice: Comparing reputationa hierarchies of schools in Chile and Finland. Compa'e a jourra of comparative and international education, 46(2), 172-193.

16. Meroni E. C., Vera-Toscaro E., Costa P. (2015) Can low skill teachers make gooc students? Empirical evidence from PIAAC and PISA Jourra of Polcy Modeling, 37(2), 308-323.

17. OECD. (2019a). Ba ancirg School Choice and Equ’ty: An Internal oral Perspective Based on Pisa.

18. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results (Vol. IV): What Makes a School Successful?

19. Resources, Po icies and Practices.

20. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results (Vol. IV): What Makes Schools Successfu l: Resources, Po icies and Practices.

21. OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 Results (Vol. I): What Stucents Know and Can Do.

22. OECD. (2019c). PISA 2018 Results (Vol. II): Where Ail Stucents Can Succeec.

23. OECD. (2020a). PISA 2018 Results (Vol. V): Effective Po icies, Successful Schools.

24. OECD. (2020b). PISA 2018 Results (Vol. VI): A'e Students Ready to Thr ve in an Interconnected World?

25. Pedins R (2013). Hierarch es and learning in the conservatoire: Exploring what stucents lea'n through the lens of Bourd eu. Res. Stub. Music Educ.,

26. (2), 197-212.

27. Perry L. В (2012). Causes ard Effects of Schoo Socio-Economic Composition? A Review of the Literature. Educ. Soc., 30(1), 19-35.

28. Reardon S. F, RajCenojshS. W. (2009). Assumptons of Va ue-Addec Moces for Estimating School Effects. Educ. Finance Policy, 4(4), 492-519.

29. Rojas-Torres L, Orddrez G, Calvo К (2021). Teacher and student practices associated with performance in the PISA reading literacy evaluation. Frontiers in Education. Frontiers Mecia SA, 6, 658-973.

30. Tasak N. (2017). The impact of OECD-PISA 'esu ts on Japanese educationa pol cy: TASAKI. Eur. J. Educ., 52(2), 145-153.

31. Tramonte L., W i ms J. D. (2010). Cu tura capita anc its effects on education outcomes. Econ Educ. Rev., 29(2), 200-213

32. Waldow F. (2009). What PISA Did and Did Not Do: Germany after the 'PISA- shock’. Eur. Educ. Res. J., 8(3), 476-483.

33. Yoon E. S., Lubienski C., Lee J. (2018). The geography of school cho ce in a city with growing requality: The case of Vancouver. Journal of Education Policy, 33(2), 279-298.

34. Басюк В. С., Ковалева Г. С. (2019). Инновационный проект Министерства просвещения "Мониторинг формирования функциональной грамотно­сти": основные направления и первые результаты. Отечественная и за­ рубежная педагогика, 4(61), 13-33.

35. Бурдье П (1993). Социология политики М.: SocioLogos

36. Бурдье П (1998). Структура, габитус, практика. Журнал социологии и со­циальной антропологии, 1(2), 44-59.

37. Демидова М. Ю., Ковалева Г. С. (2011). Естественно-научная подготовка школьников: по результатам международного исследования PISA На­ родное образование, (5), 157-165.

38. Капуза А. В., Керша Ю. Д., Захаров А. Б., ХавенсонТ Е. (2017). Образова­тельные результаты и социальное неравенство в России. Вопросы обра­зования, (4), 10-35.

39. Ковалева Г С. (2011 а). О международной программе PISA-2009 и одном из результатов по критериям: математическая л естественно-научная грамотность Муниципальное образование: инновации и эксперимент.

40. (1), 3-10.

41. Ковалева Г С. (2011b). Результаты международное исследования PISA: качество образования. Школьные технологии, (4), 166-172.

42. 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. 39. Ковалева Г С., Логинова 0. Б. (2017). Успешная школа и эффективная си­стема образования: какие факторы помогают приблизиться к идеалу? (По данным исследования PISA-2015). Педагогические измерения, (2), 9-80.

43. Кузьмина Ю В., Тюменева Ю А (2011). Читательская грамотность 15-летнлх школьников: значимость семейных, индивидуальных л школьных характеристик (по данным российской выборки PISA-2009).Вопросы образования, (3), 164-192.

44. Пентин А. Ю., Ковалева Г. С., Давыдова Е. И., Смирнова Е. С. (2018). Со­ стояние 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. 42. Пентин А. Ю. (2008). Что нам делать с PISA? Муниципальное образова­ние: инновации и эксперимент, (4), 35-40.

45. Пьер Бурдье (2005). Физическое и социальное пространства: проникно­вение и присвоение. Социология социального пространства. М., Центр гуманитарных технологий.

46. Тюменева Ю. А , Кузьмина Ю. В (2013). Что дает год обучения россий­скому школьнику. На материалах PISA-20D9: грамотность чтения. Вопро­сы образования. (1), 107-135.

47. 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.