Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

2. Educational organizations of St. Petersburg in the All-Russian ratings

Literature

Today, society is in dire need of reliable and transparent information about the quality of services in educational organizations: schools, kindergartens, institutions of additional education, colleges, universities. The issues of assessing the quality of education are of concern to all participants in the educational process, because this is a guarantee of an optimally high standard of living for the population and the basis for increasing the competitiveness of the country as a whole. Procedure independent evaluation the quality of education is carried out in relation to the activities of educational organizations and the educational programs in order to verify that the quality of the services provided meets the needs of society. A popular consumer information tool educational services about the results of an independent assessment of the quality of education are ratings.

Rating (English rating - assessment, order, classification) - a numerical or ordinal indicator that displays the importance or significance of a particular object or phenomenon. The list of objects or phenomena with the highest rating is usually called "Top N" or "TOP N",
where N is the number of objects in the list, usually a multiple of 10 Wikipedia https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating.

Rating - ranking, prioritization, evaluation, order, classification. Rating means the determination of any evaluation parameter or group of parameters according to a certain evaluation algorithm,
according to a given ranking scale by polling a large target group, or a limited group of experts. In fact, the rating is a measure of the popularity of something Dictionary http://www.marketch.ru/marketing_dictionary/marketing_terms_r/rating/ .

IN AND. Slobodchikov understands a rating as a subjective assessment of a phenomenon on a given scale. With the help of the rating, various rating scales are built, for example, the assessment of various parties labor activity, the popularity of individuals, the prestige of professions, etc. Slobodchikov V.I. Isaev E.I. Fundamentals of psychological anthropology. Psychology of human development, 2000, 7 p. .

The rating of educational organizations is a form of presenting the results of the evaluation of the activities of educational organizations or systems, in which the participants in the rating are placed in a certain sequence depending on the ratings obtained by various indicators their activities.

First, families are guided by the rating when choosing schools and kindergartens. Such a rating should include only those educational organizations that are available to real consumers, primarily on a territorial basis. Yes, popular rating
The "500 best schools in Russia" is practically useless for a resident of, for example, the Far Eastern Federal District, especially if the schools in this district are not included in the TOP 500 best schools. In addition, the rating criteria for the average USE score and the share of winners of the Olympiads
do not fully respond to the request of the parent community for the quality of the average general education.

Thirdly, for the leaders of educational organizations, the rating is a source of information for the adoption management decisions, this is a powerful incentive for development, setting new benchmarks.

When rating educational organizations, it is important to remember
about the conditions that ensure the effectiveness of the system of independent assessment of the quality of education: the subjects of assessment (the public, the media, experts, education authorities, regional quality assessment centers, etc.) and data sources (“closed” and public databases). Not all information can be used when conducting an independent assessment of the quality of education and rating educational organizations. They must meet standard data requirements: relevance, reliability, completeness. It is also important that the data be presented in a single format, in a single source of information for all rating participants.

However, in subjects Russian Federation the conditions for the functioning of educational organizations are heterogeneous, thus there is a need to create variable models for building ratings.

In the Novgorod region, ratings are a key element of the motivational strategy for managing results and have been formed since 1990. To build ratings, specific significant indicators are used, which are recognized by the educational community and the population. The results of the ratings enable the employees of the education system to get an accurate idea of ​​the success of their solution of the tasks of educational policy, bonuses for high performance. By means of ratings, the best specialists in the implementation of educational policy are determined to maintain competition and disseminate successful experience in mass practice. Criteria and indicators have been developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the activities of specialists in education management bodies.

For several years, all evaluation indicators reflected the criteria of "accessibility", "quality" and "efficiency" of education. The results included in the criteria base were divided into "general education", "profile", "creative" and "social and personal". When determining the weighting coefficient of each indicator, the significance of the result, the complexity of its achievement, dependence on work efficiency, and not on external factors. Evaluation procedures developed in the Novgorod region were used along with the well-known ones: testing of 4th grade students, sociological monitoring of the quality of educational activities. In addition, the conditions that ensure the availability of quality education were assessed: the availability of the required number of textbooks, qualified teaching staff, equipment, as well as conditions that affect the health of students.

In the future, indicators for assessing the quality of education improved. At the moment, the assessment of the values ​​of indicators is carried out separately by the level of efficiency (the level of performance, the level of efficiency of spending budget funds, the level of assessment by the population of the results of the activities of educational authorities and educational institutions) and performance dynamics (the dynamics is defined as the difference between the values ​​of the corresponding indicator in the reporting and base year).

Data analysis is carried out by an expert group consisting of representatives of educational authorities, public organizations and independent experts. In accordance with the assessment of the values ​​of performance indicators (taking into account the results of expert analysis), the rating of the municipal district (urban district) or educational institution in terms of efficiency level, the rating in terms of efficiency dynamics and the final rating are then determined.

In the Yamal-Nenets autonomous region a cluster approach is used, leveling the specific features of educational organizations operating in different conditions (territorial differentiation, differences in the contingent, etc.). Taking into account the characteristics, 8 clusters were identified: innovative educational institutions, large and small urban schools in terms of the number of students in the final grades, rural schools, basic schools, boarding schools, primary schools, evening schools. The criteria are formed on the basis of an analysis of consumer requests for the quality of educational services and are distributed in 9 areas: the quality of education, the content and technology of education, the availability and quality of additional education, the safety and comfort of the educational environment, the equipment of the educational process, the mode of operation of the school, the quality of staffing, openness educational organization, educational opportunities for children with special needs. The criteria for assessing the quality of education contain invariant and variable parts to take into account differences in the differentiation of the cluster approach. Thus, providing each cluster with its own set of criteria, indicators and indicators.

Further, on the basis of the normalized data and weight coefficients, the composite index of each educational organization is calculated. Based on its results, a rating of educational organizations is formed for each cluster separately.

In the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the selection of criteria for assessing the quality of education was carried out based on the results of a population survey and on the basis of statistical data held by the educational authorities. Thus, ratings for schools are built according to the following areas and criteria: quality of education (average USE results, GIA-9, Regional tests in the Russian language and mathematics, the results of participation in the stages of the All-Russian Olympiad for schoolchildren); equipment of the educational process (presence of specialized premises, use of the Internet); safety and comfort (providing medical care, food, security); personnel quality (staffing, skill level); teaching children with special needs.

Ratings for preschool educational organizations are built in the following areas: the availability of educational services (with the exception of paid ones); the quality of staffing; quality of conditions (according to the criteria for organizing space and conditions for maintaining health).

In the Astrakhan region, rating is carried out in four areas, containing the following groups of indicators: indicators for assessing the quality of the conditions for the implementation of general education programs in an institution; indicators for evaluating the results of mastering the main general educational programs, characterizing the minimum level of achievement by students of the region of the current federal state educational standards and regional regulations; indicators for assessing the achievement of the educational qualification based on the results of mastering the main general education programs as the main values ​​characterizing the quality of the general education programs implemented in the region; indicators for evaluating public opinion on the quality of educational services in educational institutions. A comprehensive assessment of the quality of education is carried out on the basis of: the results of a survey of parents of students of educational institutions of the Astrakhan region; standardized procedures for monitoring the quality of general education; federal government data statistical observation of Education; these procedures for licensing and state accreditation of educational institutions; final certification of graduates of the 9th, 11th grades.

Thus, we can conclude that approaches to the formation of ratings of educational organizations are different in each specific region of the Russian Federation due to the peculiarities of their functioning and territorial location.

Rating serves as the basis for identifying and analyzing problems that slow down the pace of implementation of educational policy, for setting priorities when setting new tasks and optimizing the mechanisms for their solution. Ratings form a competitive environment, which in turn accelerates the solution of priority tasks, reveals best practics solving problems for the purpose of further dissemination, increase the awareness of the population about the results of the ongoing reforms, inspiring the confidence of the population.

The results of an independent assessment of the quality of education and rating can be used in forecasting and comparative analysis the effectiveness of various organizational models and educational systems, innovative design, in the development of management methods and public-private partnerships, intra- and intersectoral work, as well as combining the efforts of governing bodies, the parent community and the expert community in the development of education.

The ratings are conducted by the Moscow Center for Continuing Mathematical Education with the informational support of the Rossiya Segodnya MIA and Uchitelskaya Gazeta with the assistance of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

This rating represents an assessment of the contribution of a general education institution in providing students with the opportunity to receive a quality education and develop their abilities. It is built on the basis of tools for measuring the level of preparation of schoolchildren, which are the main state exam and the All-Russian Olympiad for schoolchildren.

For inclusion in the list, educational organizations are considered that have at least one winner or prize-winner of the regional or final stage of the All-Russian Olympiad for schoolchildren in the 2015-2016 academic year. The rating includes 500 best educational institutions in Russia that demonstrated high educational results in the 2015-2016 academic year.

Since 2014, the criterion "presence of competitive selection" has been taken into account. Starting from 2016, the participation of general education organizations in all-Russian verification work is taken into account.

The results of general education organizations are normalized in accordance with their quantitative occupancy, which can significantly reduce the impact of the size of a general education organization on the chances of getting into the top lists. The presence of at least one prize-winner or winner of the final stage of the All-Russian Olympiad for schoolchildren is necessary condition inclusion in the rating list.

(1st place in TOP-500)

2. Lyceum "Physical-Technical School" of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "SPNIAU RAS" (24th place in the TOP 500)

4. GBOU "Academic Gymnasium No. 56"

5. GBOU "St. Petersburg Governor's Physics and Mathematics Lyceum No. 30"

6. GBOU Gymnasium No. 116 of the Primorsky District

9. GBOU Gymnasium No. 205 of the Frunzensky District

10. GBOU Gymnasium No. 261 of the Kirov region

11. GBOU Gymnasium No. 271 of the Krasnoselsky district

12. GBOU Gymnasium No. 406 of the Pushkin District

13. GBOU Gymnasium No. 446 of the Kolpinsky district

14. GBOU Gymnasium No. 52 of the Primorsky District

15. GBOU Gymnasium No. 526 of the Moscow region

16. GBOU Gymnasium No. 528 of the Nevsky district

17. GBOU Gymnasium No. 61 of the Vyborgsky District

18. GBOU Gymnasium No. 610 "St. Petersburg Classical Gymnasium" of the Petrogradsky District

19. GBOU Gymnasium No. 642 "Earth and Universe" Vasileostrovsky district

20. GBOU Gymnasium No. 652 of the Vyborg District

21. GBOU Lyceum No. 369 of the Krasnoselsky district

22. GBOU Lyceum No. 384 of the Kirov region

23. GBOU Lyceum No. 533 "Educational complex" Malaya Okhta "Krasnogvardeisky district

24. GBOU secondary school No. 222 with in-depth study of the German language "PETRISHULE" of the Central District

25. GBOU secondary school No. 29 with in-depth study of the French language and law of the Vasileostrovsky district

26. GBOU secondary school No. 318 with in-depth study of the Italian language of the Frunzensky district

27. GBOU secondary school No. 332 of the Nevsky district

28. GBOU secondary school No. 43 with in-depth study of foreign languages ​​"Linguistic School" of the Primorsky District

29. GBOU secondary school No. 45 with in-depth study of mathematics of the Primorsky district

30. GBOU secondary school No. 455 with in-depth study of English language Kolpinsky district

31. GBOU secondary school No. 471 of the Vyborg district

1. GBOU Second St. Petersburg Gymnasium;

2. GBOU lyceum No. 64 of the Primorsky district;

3. GBOU average comprehensive school No. 4 with in-depth study of the French language named after Jacques-Yves Cousteau of the Vasileostrovsky district;

4. Lyceum No. 214 of the Central District;

5. GBOU secondary school No. 605 with in-depth study of the German language of the Vyborgsky district.

In order to support educational institutions included in the TOP 500 “Best Schools in Russia”, the Education Committee organized a meeting of the heads of these institutions with the Governor of St. Petersburg
G.S. Poltavchenko, and also presented the gratitude of the Committee on Education.

Rating "Best schools, providing development talents students."

The ranking of the best schools in terms of talent development takes into account only the results of the All-Russian Olympiad for schoolchildren: the absolute number of winners and prize-winners of the Olympiad, the number of subjects in which schoolchildren successfully performed. The methodology was developed taking into account the size of the school.

The Top 200 general education organizations that provide high opportunities for the development of students' abilities include
from St. Petersburg:

3. GBOU "Presidential Physics and Mathematics Lyceum No. 239"

4. GBOU "St. Petersburg Governor's Physics and Mathematics Lyceum No. 30"

5. GBOU Gymnasium No. 610 "St. Petersburg Classical Gymnasium" of the Petrogradsky District

6. GBOU Gymnasium No. 642 "Earth and Universe" Vasileostrovsky district

7. GBOU Gymnasium No. 155 of the Central District

8. GBOU Gymnasium No. 171 of the Central District

9. GBOU Lyceum No. 533 "Educational complex" Malaya Okhta "Krasnogvardeisky district

11. Academic Gymnasium named after D.K. Faddeev, St. Petersburg State University

In 2015, there were 12 such schools.

1. GBOU TsO "St. Petersburg City Palace of Youth Creativity". Anichkov Lyceum;

2. GBOU secondary school No. 4 with in-depth study of the French language. Jacques-Yves Cousteau, Vasileostrovsky district;

3. GBOU secondary school No. 605 with in-depth study of the German language of the Vyborgsky district

Rating "Best schools, providing high level profile preparation."

When compiling the rating, the results of the final and regional stages of the All-Russian Olympiad for schoolchildren in this profile area, as well as the results of the Compulsory State Exam (OGE) in specialized subjects were taken into account. For inclusion in the list, educational organizations were considered that have at least one winner or prize-winner of the regional or final stage of the All-Russian Olympiad for schoolchildren of the 2015-2016 academic year in at least one of the subjects included in the subject area (profile). Only the top 25 students in the general education organization are taken into account. The rating includes the first 100 educational institutions.

TOP educational organizations of chemical and biological profile:

3. GBOU Gymnasium No. 261 of the Kirovsky district

4. GBOU Lyceum No. 554 of the Primorsky district

5. GBOU secondary school No. 225 of the Admiralteysky district

6. Academic Gymnasium named after D.K. Faddeev, St. Petersburg State University

TOP educational organizations of biological and geographical profile

1. GBOU "Academic Gymnasium No. 56"

2. GBOU Gymnasium No. 116 of the Primorsky District

3. GBOU Lyceum No. 554 of the Primorsky district

4. GBOU secondary school No. 225 of the Admiralteysky district

5. Academic Gymnasium named after D.K. Faddeev, St. Petersburg State University

In 2015, there were 1 such schools.

TOP educational organizations of industrial and technological profile:

1. Lyceum "Physical-Technical School" FSBEI HE "SPNIAU RAS" (2nd place)

2. GBOU "Presidential Physics and Mathematics Lyceum No. 239"
(3rd place)

3. GBOU secondary school No. 455 with in-depth study of the English language of the Kolpinsky district

4. GBOU secondary school No. 551 of the Kirov region

TOP educational organizations of mathematical profile:

1. Lyceum "Physical-Technical School" FSBEI HE "SPNIAU RAS"

2. GBOU "Presidential Physics and Mathematics Lyceum No. 239
(1st place)

In 2015, there were 4 such schools.

TOP educational organizations of the defense and sports profile:

1. GBOU Gymnasium No. 528 of the Nevsky district

2. GBOU Lyceum No. 419 of the Petrodvorets district

3. GBOU secondary school No. 332 of the Nevsky district

4. GBOU secondary school No. 583 of the Primorsky district

5. GBOU secondary school No. 135 with in-depth study of English in the Vyborgsky district

6. GBOU secondary school No. 422 of the Kronstadt district

In 2015, there were 3 such schools.

TOP educational organizations of social and humanitarian profile:

1. GBOU "Academic Gymnasium No. 56"

2. GBOU Gymnasium No. 610 "St. Petersburg Classical Gymnasium" of the Petrogradsky District

3. GBOU Gymnasium No. 642 "Earth and Universe" Vasileostrovsky district

In 2015, there were 3 such schools.

TOP educational organizations of socio-economic profile:

1. GBOU "Academic Gymnasium No. 56"

2. GBOU "Presidential Physics and Mathematics Lyceum No. 239"

3. Academic Gymnasium named after D.K. Faddeev, St. Petersburg State University

In 2015, there were 1 such schools.

TOP educational organizations of physical and mathematical profile:

1. GBOU "Presidential Physics and Mathematics Lyceum No. 239"
(1st place)

2. Lyceum "Physical-Technical School" FSBEI HE "SPNIAU RAS" (4th place)

3. GBOU "St. Petersburg Governor's Physics and Mathematics Lyceum No. 30"

4. GBOU Lyceum No. 533 "Educational complex" Malaya Okhta "Krasnogvardeisky district

In 2015, there were 5 such schools.

TOP educational organizations of physical and chemical profile:

1. GBOU "Presidential Physics and Mathematics Lyceum No. 239"
(2nd place)

In 2015, there were 2 such schools.

TOP educational organizations of a philological profile:

1. GBOU Gymnasium No. 171 of the Central District (6th place)

2. GBOU "Academic Gymnasium No. 56"

3. GBOU Gymnasium No. 61 of the Vyborg District

4. GBOU Gymnasium No. 610 "St. Petersburg Classical Gymnasium" of the Petrogradsky District

5. GBOU Gymnasium No. 642 "Earth and Universe" Vasileostrovsky district

6. GBOU Gymnasium No. 652 of the Vyborgsky district

7. GBOU Gymnasium No. 155 of the Central District

8. GBOU Gymnasium No. 406 of the Pushkin District

9. GBOU secondary school No. 43 with in-depth study of foreign languages ​​"Linguistic School" of the Primorsky District

10. GBOU secondary school No. 222 with in-depth study of the German language "PETRISHULE" of the Central District

11. GBOU secondary school No. 29 with in-depth study of the French language and law of the Vasileostrovsky district

In 2015, there were 6 such schools.

Table 1

table 2

On the participation of educational institutions of St. Petersburg in the ratings of the MIA "Russia Today" in 2016 in the context of districts

Thus, we can conclude that the schools of St. Petersburg provide quality education, entering the ratings of the best schools in Russia and maintaining their positions in them.

St. Petersburg has developed and applies its own regional sectoral system of ratings for educational institutions.

The ratings of educational organizations of St. Petersburg, implementing educational programs of secondary general education, are based on the criteria of the St. Petersburg regional system for assessing the quality of education, approved by the order of the Committee on Education dated January 20, 2014 No. 37-r “On approval of the model of the regional system for assessing the quality of education (hereinafter - SPb RSOKO), Regulations on SPb RSOKO and criteria of SPb RSOKO” and are formed to increase the openness of the education system of St. Petersburg.

The ratings are based on an analysis of objective data contained in information systems ah of St. Petersburg: AISU "Paragraph-Movement", a regional information system for ensuring the state final certification of students who have mastered the main educational programs of basic general and secondary general education, a database of olympiads.

Based on the results of the 2014-2015 academic year, final ratings were built in 4 main areas:

results of mass education;

high educational results and achievements;

terms of reference educational activities;

staffing.

100 first places in each final rating are subject to publication (number of 100 is conditional, if points are equal, it can be increased or decreased so that all educational organizations with the same number of points fall into the published part of the rating). In the event that an organization received high scores in several areas at once, it was included in several ratings at the same time.

The range of indicator values ​​calculated for educational organizations is divided into ten equal parts;

Organizations, the values ​​of indicators for which fall into the first part, are assigned a rating score of 10, and in the second group - 9;

Organizations in which the indicator is equal to 0 or data are not available in the information systems of St. Petersburg are assigned a rating score of 0.

Intermediate ratings are built on the basis of primary ratings. The position in the intermediate rating is determined by summing the points of the primary ratings. Intermediate ratings are used for thematic grouping of primary ratings and analysis of results.

The position of an educational organization in the final rating is determined by summing the rating points of the intermediate ratings. General structure ratings are presented in table 1.

The rating of educational organizations based on the results of mass education is calculated according to the following indicators: USE results in the Russian language, mathematics, elective subjects, USE results in the Russian language, mathematics, uniformity of USE results, uniformity of USE results, absence of unsatisfactory learning outcomes. The results of the Unified State Examination and the OGE used to calculate the ranking are calculated from the value of the median of primary scores in the subject of graduates of each educational institution.

The location of educational organizations within each rating group (OO with the same amount of rating points) is in ascending order of their numbers.

The rating of educational organizations in terms of high educational results and students' achievements is calculated according to the following indicators: results of participation in the regional Olympiads of St. Petersburg, results of participation in the All-Russian Olympiad for schoolchildren: regional and final stages, high results of the Unified State Examination in the Russian language, mathematics, elective subjects, OGE Russian language, mathematics.

The rating of educational organizations in terms of the quality of the conditions for conducting educational activities is calculated according to the following indicators: the provision of students with computers, the provision of computers for teachers, the provision of schools with multimedia projectors, interactive whiteboards and prefixes, the provision of the school with areas for various purposes, the provision of the school with sports and social infrastructure facilities,

The rating of educational organizations in terms of staffing is calculated according to the following indicators: availability of teaching staff, provision of teachers with methodological support, provision of students with support service, qualification category of teachers, awards of teachers, advanced training of teachers.

Table 3

provide parents with reliable information on key issues of the quality of educational services provided by educational institutions, and help them with the choice or evaluation of the educational institution in which their children are already studying;

will provide heads of educational organizations the ability to compare the quality of education of your educational organization with others, to identify strengths and weaknesses in activities, analysis of the reasons for the lag and choice priority areas to ensure High Quality education;

will provide leaders and specialists of educational authorities correct comparative assessment activities of subordinate organizations in the field of ensuring the quality of education for the analysis and adoption of effective management decisions.

Literature

1. Aralova, M. A. Handbook of a preschool psychologist: monograph. / M.A. Aralova. M.: Sfera, 2015. 272 ​​p.

2. Vyskub, V. G. Russian public-state system of attestation of scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel of the highest qualification / V.G. Vyskub. M.: Logos, 2014. 256 p.

3. Gedrimovich, G. V. Research, educational and informational activity of higher school on the example of socio-economic education / G.V. Gedrimovich, M.V. Ezhov, S.M. Klimov. M.: IVESEP, 2015. 384 p.

4. Danilina, T. A. In the world of children's emotions. A manual for practitioners of the preschool educational institution / T.A. Danilina, V.Ya. Zedgenidze, N.M. Stepin. M.: Iris-press, 2014. 160 p.

5. Derkach, V. I. Optimization of the management of the personnel of educational systems: monograph. / IN AND. Derkach. M.: Itar-Tass, 2015. 152 p.

6. Egorov, V. B. modern science and the tradition of the Church in school education. Search for the relationship: monograph. / V.B. Egorov. Moscow: Endemic, 2014. 240 p.

7. Kozak, N. N. Integrated security in educational institutions. Tutorial/ N.N. Kozak. Moscow: Phoenix, 2016. 352 p.

8. The concept of the Federal target program development of education for 2006-2010. M.: Sfera, 2015. 530 p.

9. Kotova, E.V. State regulatory authorities in educational institutions / E.V. Kotov. M.: Karo, 2014. 272 ​​p.

10. Kryuchkova, I. V. Innovative practice of achieving the results of education of schoolchildren in the context of the implementation of the new Federal State Educational Standards. Textbook / I.V. Kryuchkov. M.: Author's Club, 2015. 383 p.

11. Kulnevich, S. V. Management modern school. Issue 3. Municipal methodological services / S.V. Kulnevich, V.I. Goncharova, E.A. Migal. M.: Uchitel, 2016. 224 p.

12. Lobanov, A. P. Modular approach in the system of higher education. Fundamentals of structuralization and metacognition / A.P. Lobanov, N.V. Drozdov. M.: RIVSH, 2016. 733 p.

13. Management in the practice of preschool education / L.A. Penkova et al. M.: Sfera, 2014. 838 p.

15. Modernization Russian education. Challenges of the new decade. M.: Publishing House"Delo" RANEPA, 2015. 104 p.

16. Modernization of Russian education: challenges of the new decade. M.: Publishing House "Delo" RANEPA, 2016. 104 p.

17. To a young teacher. M.: Education, 2015. 416 p.

18. Monitoring in modern kindergarten. Toolkit. M.: Sfera, 2014. 559 p.

19. Morgunov, G.M. Sociosynergetics and education / G.M. Morgunov. M.: MPEI, 2014. 152 p.

20. Educational systems modern Russia. Directory. M.: RGGU, 2014. 496 p.

21. Wellness work in the preschool educational institution under the program "Health Island". M.: Uchitel, 2014. 152 p.

22. Organization of kindergartens during the years of the revolution. M.: Sfera, 2015. 128 p.

23. Pastorova, A. Yu. Inclusive education: research and practice in St. Petersburg / A. Yu. Pastorova. Moscow: St. Petersburg University Press, 2015. 666 p.

24. Rastimeshin, Dmitry Municipal autonomous non-profit organizations in education / Dmitry Rastimeshin. Moscow: Educational Cooperation Agency, 2014. 875 p.

25. Rubin, Yu. B. Higher education in Russia. Quality and competitiveness / Yu.B. Ruby. M.: Moscow Financial and Industrial Academy, 2014. 448 p.

26. Sobkin, V. S. Modern Russian teacher. Sketch for a sociological portrait: monograph. / V.S. Sobkin, D.V. Adamchuk. M.: Author's Club, 2015. 857 p.

27. Fiapshev, B.Kh. Educational standards, autonomy of higher education, academic freedoms / B.Kh. Fiapshev. M.: National education, 2014. 216 p.

28. Shlykova, O.V. Internationalization of Higher Education in the Context of Social Information Technologies / O.V. Shlykov. Moscow: SINTEG, 2015. 994 p.

29. Shlykova, O. V. Russian Educational Environment Resources. Internet / O.V. Shlykov. Moscow: Nauka, 2014. 481 p.

30. Shteringarts, E. M. Children's Science Club. Organization of developmental education of schoolchildren in additional education / E.M. Shteringarts. M.: Author's Club, 2015. 495 p.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Analysis of the study of the address groups of the site of an educational organization. Evaluation of the results of interaction between parents and the school according to the data of all-Russian public opinion polls and on the basis of educational organizations of the Kirovsky district of St. Petersburg.

thesis, added 01/05/2016


Types, structures and technologies educational resources. Methods of motivating and stimulating independent intra-semester work of students. The use of distance learning information systems and a point-rating system for assessing knowledge.

thesis, added 09/30/2017


Analysis of the system of additional education of children and adolescents in the framework of their work towards the development of the creative personality of pupils. Features of institutions of additional education as educational organizations, their role in the formation of personality.

thesis, added 03.10.2013


Artistic association "World of Art": origins, creation of association and magazine, participants. Algorithm for working with pictorial clarity. Features of the application of the visual teaching method in the lessons of the school course of the history and culture of St. Petersburg.

thesis, added 06/11/2017


The theory of ensuring the competitiveness of institutions of higher education vocational education. Formation and criteria assessment innovative potential educational organizations in the field professional retraining and staff development.

thesis, added 01/24/2018


Characteristics and types of children's public organizations. The role of children's public organizations in the education of student youth. Analysis of the activities of children's public organizations and their role in the education and formation of the personality of children in the Omsk region.

term paper, added 10/26/2012


The value of educational work in the ideological directions of the state. The problem of organizing educational work in primary school general education schools. Kyzylteyit. Marketing in the activities of the director in educational institutions.

thesis, added 04/12/2014


Acquaintance with the theoretical prerequisites for diagnostic testing and evaluation of educational results of students in the educational process. Consideration and characterization of the features of the means of diagnosing the educational results of younger students.

thesis, added 09/24/2017


Activities of the Michael Gordon Center for Research in Medical Education (USA). Simulation technologies in healthcare as an object of training for representatives of medical organizations. Recommendations for improving educational programs.

presentation, added 04/04/2011


Prerequisites for the appearance of " effective contract"in the practice of Russian education. Processing personal data. Effects in the work of teachers of professional educational organizations of the Moscow region in the transition to an effective contract.

In recent years, the education system has seen an increase in paper work everywhere: certificates, reports, plans, etc. This applies to both schools in general and individual teachers.

According to redsovet.org, about half (47%) of the teachers surveyed spend 3 to 8 hours a week on this work and more than a quarter (26%) of those surveyed spend more than 10 hours a week.

According to our data, paperwork itself takes up 10% of the total time budget of teachers in gymnasiums and 11% in regular schools.

In total, bureaucratic work, including the preparation of papers, participation in various meetings, solving economic issues, etc., in 2011 amounted to about 18–20% of the total working time of teachers. By now, the situation has only worsened.

An additional factor in the formation of a bureaucratic wave is the formation of various ratings of the education system, which has spread in recent years. Let's show it on the example of the analysis of a specific case.

In October 2013, the Department of Education and Science of the Kemerovo Region issued an order “On the rating of educational institutions located on the territory of the Kemerovo region”, which ordered “to test the rating of educational organizations ... for the quality of the results and conditions of the educational process; electronic survey of participants in educational relations on the issue of satisfaction with the quality of education in municipalities”.

GOU DPO (PC) "Kuzbass Regional Institute for Advanced Studies and Retraining of Educational Workers" (KRIPC and PRO) was appointed as the coordinator of rating activities. Heads of bodies local government those exercising management in the field of education, it is recommended to “ensure the timely provision of reliable information by the heads of municipal educational organizations to KRIPK and PRO” (clause 8 of Order No. 2133).

At the start of the work, indicators (indicators) for the rating were proposed: 32 indicators for schools and 20 indicators for kindergartens, divided into two headings (human resource potential and material modern conditions).

At the end of 2015, these values ​​amounted to 109 indicators for schools and 83 indicators for kindergartens, respectively, these indicators are already divided into 13 headings, two of which are still reserve.

That is, in two years there was an increase in registered indicators for schools by 3.4 times, for kindergartens - more than 4 times.

It can be assumed that the increase in the number of indicators occurred due to "numerous requests from workers."

It should be added that each indicator is a kind of matryoshka doll, in which from 3 to 7 increasingly smaller clarifying indicators are hidden.

Ultimately, schools must submit materials and enter data into the AIS "Regional Education Department" for more than 400 indicators.

Depending on the size and profile of the school, the input array of information can be much larger, but almost never less. It is clear that this implies a change in the system for recording the results of the current work of the school, taking into account the requirements of the rating indicators.

Of course, one person cannot cope with such a volume of work, and all educational institutions form special teams. In schools with up to 700 students, this is done by a team of 4-5 people; in lyceums known for their success, this is done by a team of 8 people.

This kind of activity is always under the special control of the head of the organization. In any case, we are talking about labor costs no longer in “man-hours”, but in “man-weeks”. As a result of the gigantic work of preparing and sending data to the AIS, each school receives a certain place in the ranking.

From the above data, it is clear that three criteria are used to calculate the rating, including 35 indicators, while the dominant role is given to the criterion "Material conditions" (19 indicators), in second place is "Personnel" (11 indicators) and in third place - "Result" ( 5 indicators).

And this is clearly seen from the materials of the table:

• school No. 7 (Kemerovo), which moved from 56th to 3rd place, according to the “Result” criterion (0.917) corresponds to the 19th place, and according to the “Personnel” criterion (0.781) - to the 3rd place, and here, according to the criterion “Conditions” (3.614) - 1st place, and by a wide margin;
• school No. 44 (Kemerovo) with the second value of the criterion "Result" (1.015), took only 30th position in the final rating;
• school No. 28 (Prokopyevsk) with the third value of the criterion "Result" (1.013) was in 36th place.

It would seem that if a school gives a better result in worse conditions, its efficiency is higher, but according to the ranking data, this is not the case.

It also becomes clear from the data in the table that the amount of information provided by the school (109 indicators in 11 areas) is clearly excessive in relation to the indicators directly used to calculate the rating (35 indicators). How and why the "extra" information is used remains unclear.

I must say that the regional education system declares information openness, including the ranking of schools. It seems that the rating itself is intended to “provide consumers with reliable information about the quality of the conditions and results of the activities of educational organizations” (Appendix 1 to Order No. 2123, p. 1), but in practice, not all consumer schools have access to this information.

Some education committees give schools a complete final rating of all educational institutions in the region, others give truncated information on schools only in their own municipality. In this case, schools do not have access to information about schools in their own or another municipality, and in this sense, information openness is rather limited.

According to the Rating Regulations, the main users of the rating are “public organizations interested in assessing the quality of the work of educational organizations; students and their parents (legal representatives) ”(Appendix 1 to Order No. 2123, p. 2).

However, neither one nor the other has free access to the results of the rating, since its results are distributed through the official channels of the education system and in some cases in a truncated form.

In the best case, the school reports on its website about the place taken in the ranking. These consumers do not have the opportunity to get acquainted with the original information about the conditions of training, personnel, etc. Similarly, the source data of one school is closed to another school. In this situation, the solution of the rating task of providing consumers with reliable information seems to be problematic.

Strictly within the framework of this position, a detective story takes place with the text of Order No. 2123. On the website of the Department of Education and Science of the Kemerovo Region in early 2016, the order disappeared from the Documents section, and can only be found in the archive, knowing the number and date of signing.

At the same time, in today's version, there have been major changes in the text of the appendices to the order. Thus, the Regulations on rating, Questionnaires for studying satisfaction with the quality of education for parents and students have disappeared from Appendix 1, the indicators themselves for the rating have changed significantly, even the name of Appendix 1 itself has changed (if earlier it was an Appendix to the order of the Department, now it is an Appendix to the Regulations "On rating", despite the fact that the provision itself is missing).

In other words, in strict accordance with the rules of the bureaucratic activity of the Ministry of Truth (D. Orwell), the content of the documents was changed. Of course, changes are possible and necessary, but why do it? backdating by modifying documents from two years ago?

The above can be summarized in the form of the following table.

Table 2.

It is obvious that practically none of the declared tasks has been solved even in the first approximation. Nevertheless, the rating procedure exists and is even developing. Therefore, it is necessary to judge not by words, but by deeds.

It turns out that the regional IPK, as the operator of the "Rating" project (according to the order of the Department of Education and Science), concludes an agreement with each educational organization for the provision of a range of services for maintenance and information and technical support. According to this agreement, CRIPC and PRO provides the school with access to software product(by passing the login and access password) and eliminates failures in the settings of the software product.

The school transfers its data to the system, has access only to them and “has the right to use (its own!) data in order to develop its own educational institution” (clause 2.2.1 of the Agreement).

The cost of providing services under the contract is 1000 rubles 00 kopecks. According to the official data of Kemerovostat, at the end of 2014 there were 700 schools and 982 kindergartens in the Kemerovo region.

Good financial flows are obtained for providing access to the software product by transferring the login and password and eliminating failures in the settings (clauses 2.1.1−2.1.3 of the Agreement).

I must say that there are other ratings of educational organizations in the country. Thus, the heads of schools regularly included in the well-known RIA Novosti rating “Top-500” note two differences from the regional one.

Firstly, it is the results of schoolchildren that are taken into account, integrating both the conditions of education and the staffing capabilities of schools.

The schools themselves, regularly included in the "Top 500", have not yet been winners in their home region. Apparently, the regional ranking has other priorities.

Thus, a system of rating educational organizations in the region has been created and is successfully operating. Under this system, all educational organizations are required, in accordance with the relevant orders of the relevant authorities, to collect and transmit a certain set of data on their activities.

The amount of data and the nomenclature of parameters are set (increased) arbitrarily, do not depend on the desire and capabilities of the school and are very indirectly related to the rating itself.

For the fulfillment of the imposed obligation to collect and transfer data, the school must pay the operator of the Rating project. In fact, the school pays twice: first to teachers for collecting information, which is not the responsibility of teachers, then for its transmission.

At present, the initial meaning and motivation of such activities are not entirely clear, since the Rating Regulation itself is missing (disappeared). Now the tail is wagging the dog. To paraphrase the classic a little, we can say that if such stars are lit, then someone needs it. Whether schools need it is another question ...

How to choose the right university, college, lyceum or circle from all this variety of offers? First of all, pay attention to the position of the educational organization in the corresponding rating. Today we will try to find the right "recipe" for the choice and consider in more detail the criteria on the basis of which the ratings of educational institutions are compiled.

In our Soviet past, the question choice of educational organizations did not stand in front of the students and their parents. Firstly, the choice of school was limited by the area of ​​residence (that is, there was actually no choice), and secondly, all schools, technical schools, colleges and universities were state-owned and "worked" according to uniform training programs, which almost completely excluded the separation of educational institutions for the best and the worst.

Today the situation has changed markedly. Not only has a large number of private educational organizations appeared that offer a huge variety of training programs, but also each of them strives to appear in the eyes of applicants only with the most better side. As a result, modern educational organizations, in addition to compulsory training programs, offer various Additional services(for example, optional classes in etiquette or enhanced chemistry training, internships abroad or guaranteed employment, etc.) designed to make the educational institution as attractive as possible in the eyes of potential students and their parents.

How to choose the right university, college, lyceum or circle from all this variety of offers? First of all, pay attention to the position of the educational organization in the corresponding rating. Today we will try to find the right "recipe" for choosing and consider in more detail the criteria on the basis of which ratings of educational institutions.

How are ratings created and why are they needed?

An analysis of the ranking of an educational institution is one of the most reliable ways to assess its prestige, the effectiveness of training and career prospects after graduation. Therefore, their ratings today are not only special state organizations, but also authoritative professional publications, online portals and scientific centers educational sphere. At the same time, for the convenience of consumers, the ratings are divided into different categories: rural and urban schools, kindergartens, universities, colleges, educational organizations that develop the creativity of students, etc.

In recent years, organizations such as the EXPERT RA rating agency, the Moscow Center for Continuous Mathematical Education, the Institute for Psychological and Pedagogical Problems of Childhood of the Russian Academy of Education, the Federal Agency for Education, graduate School Economics, an independent rating agency in the field of education "Reitor" and the National Research University.

It should be noted that often creation of ratings of educational organizations is supported by periodicals, for example, Rossiya Segodnya, Uchitelskaya Gazeta, Sotsial'nyi Navigator, Director of School, RIA Novosti and Kommersant actively participate in this process.

How is the rating of an educational institution formed?

The criteria for creating a rating depend on the type of educational institution and the purpose of creating the list. For example, the ranking of universities is aimed at analyzing its prestige, the effectiveness of training, and career prospects. And the TOPs of circles and development centers help parents evaluate the quality of teaching, the organization of the creative process and their compliance with payment. Each rating is created according to a specially developed methodology, taking into account the specifics of the educational institution. We invite you to familiarize yourself with the methodology for creating and the goals of the ratings of the most popular types of educational institutions.

Kindergartens

The main goal of creating ratings of kindergartens is to solve the problem of their information accessibility for parents, stimulate the development of the institution, create new educational methods and improve the level of teaching. Thus, ratings not only provide parents with the necessary data, but also encourage managers preschool institutions to improvement. In addition, ratings provide educational specialists with objective information about the work of kindergartens. As a rule, the main criteria for the formation of the list of the best preschool institutions are such indicators as:

• quality of work of teachers;
• learning outcomes;
• the conditions of the child's stay and safety;
• sanitary and hygienic condition of the kindergarten;
• additional kindergarten services;
• recovery;
• accessibility for children with disabilities.

In addition to experts and the leadership of the kindergarten, which provides all the data on the work of the organization, parents and children (both those who still attend kindergarten and those who have already gone to school) take part in the creation of the rating. Parents of almost every Russian city can find a regional rating of kindergartens in periodicals and on educational portals.

By the way, according to the final rating of municipal kindergartens in Russia in 2014, not a single kindergarten from 21 regions of the Russian Federation received an "excellent" rating. The largest number preschool institutions (39 units) rated "good" are located in the Samara region. 666 kindergartens in the Novosibirsk region became leaders in the "satisfactory" position.

Secondary schools

School rankings are aimed at helping parents of school-age children decide on the place of study of their child, by considering all the advantages and disadvantages of an educational organization, based on individual features schoolboy. Here, the main criterion should not be the fact of the geographical location of the school, but the quality of its work and the prestige of the institution.

The information on the basis of which ratings are created is provided by regional education authorities, educational organizations, school graduates and students. The institution is evaluated in terms of the availability and quality of education, opportunities for individual development, the state of the material and technical base, learning outcomes (in particular, according to the results of passing the EGE and participating in olympiads).

universities

It is often difficult for applicants and their parents to do right choice among a wide variety of educational institutions. And exactly university rankings help you make the final choice and understand which university is best for you.

• results of surveys among graduates and students, employers and teaching staff;
• the quality of teaching, the number of students, the forms and methods of teaching, the level of scientific research, the material and technical base, the number of branches (these data are provided by the administration of the university);
• EGE scores of students enrolled in the first year;
• results of surveys of large companies that hire young professionals.

According to the "Expert RA" rating in 2014 in the top five the best universities in Russia included: Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow State Technical University. N. E. Bauman, National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, St. Petersburg State University. The methodology for creating this rating was formed on the basis of the analysis of statistical data, surveys of students, graduates and employers.

Instead of a conclusion

Ratings of educational institutions, which are based on assessments of work and conditions for learning, feedback from graduates and analysis of learning outcomes, will undoubtedly help you evaluate the work of an educational organization according to priority criteria and make the right choice. However, they should not be considered as "ultimate truth", since each of the TOPs, in addition to objective information, also contains subjective factors (after all, they are made up of people who can be influenced from outside).

Therefore, studying ratings of educational institutions and in an effort to find "your" school, college or university, be guided not only by reason, but also by intuitive sensations. And then you will definitely choose the "right" educational organization that will open the way to a brighter future for you.

Supported
Commission of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation for the Development of Education

(for educational systems and organizations of preschool, general and additional education of children)

The purpose of this document is to create basic approaches to the development and construction of ratings in the education system of the Russian Federation, regardless of whether they are departmental or independent, national, regional or municipal, whether educational systems or organizations are rated.

This work was done taking into account the recognized international and domestic experience and relied on such documents as Berlin principles for ranking higher educational institutions , developed by the International Ranking Expert Group (IREG) in 2006, and Rating Audit Rules(IREG Ranking Audi t Rules), adopted in 2011. All materials used were critically analyzed and finalized taking into account the specifics of Russian education.

THESAURUS

This document uses a number of specific terms adopted in international rating practice. To ensure the quality of ratings in the education system of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to ensure an accurate understanding of these terms by all participants in the process.

Rating - this is a form of presenting the results of evaluating the activities of educational organizations or systems, in which the rating participants are placed in a certain sequence depending on the ratings received for various indicators of their activities.

Ranking - this is a form of presenting the results of the evaluation of the activities of educational organizations or systems, in which the participants in the ranking can be sorted by any of the available indicators. Unlike the rating, this is not a fixed form, but a database for obtaining all the ranking options of the original list of interest.

League table - this is a form of presenting the results of evaluating the activities of educational organizations or systems, in which participants are divided into a number of groups (leagues) depending on the assessments received for various indicators of their activities. One league includes participants who received comparable scores for selected indicators. All participants in the same group (league) are considered approximately equal in terms of these indicators.

Ranging - this is a procedure for the distribution of participants (educational organizations or systems) according to increasing or decreasing indicators that characterize one or another of their properties, qualities.

Indicators - this is a characteristic of an educational organization and / or the activities it implements that is accessible to observation and measurement, which makes it possible to judge its other characteristics that are inaccessible to direct research.

Indicators - this is a quantitative (expressed by number) characteristic by which one can judge the course and results of the educational process, and which is available for direct research.

The proposed principles are the same for all forms of presenting the results of the assessment of educational organizations (ratings, rankings, league tables), which in the text of the Principles are conditionally called " ratings ”, and the procedure for their formation is “ ranking ».

MAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF RANKINGS IN EDUCATION IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Ranking serves effective tool obtaining information for comparison and a better understanding of the situation in education. But it should not be the main or only method of assessing education. Along with rankings, there are other procedures and methods for obtaining information about education, which must also be used to obtain a holistic description of the education system.

B) Goals and objectives of ranking must :

2. Be focused on the interests of a particular target audience, specific tasks, as well as clearly define a group of objects (subjects) that are subject to ranking. The goals of the rating should be related to understanding and presenting the activities of educational systems and organizations. They can be aimed at the development of ranked objects and (or) information support for the consumer's choice of services or organizations. Ranking should be carried out in strict accordance with the goals and objectives.

3. Clearly determine the specifics and direction of the rating in the context of the interests of the target audience. The rating methodology is a targeting tool and it is unique for each rating. A methodology developed for certain tasks and a specific target audience is not suitable in other cases.

4. Recognize the diversity of educational organizations and take into account the difference in their missions and tasks. The assessment of the activities of educational organizations implementing "advanced level" programs differs from the assessment of organizations implementing educational programs " basic level» and/or working with students with special educational needs (children with disabilities, students in correctional classes, migrant children, etc.).

5. Provide clarity on the set of sources that provide ranking information and the indicators derived from each of the resources. The relevance of the ranking results depends on the audience it is intended for (students and their parents, teachers and specialists) and on the sources of information (databases). The ideal would be to combine all the information coming from different sources, each with its own review perspective. As a result, it would be possible to obtain more complete and complete information about the object included in the rating.

6. Take into account the linguistic, cultural, economic and historical context of the education system being ranked. It is necessary to take into account all, even indirect factors, and clearly define the specifics of the goals and objectives facing the systems being ranked. Not all regions and education systems are unanimous in their views on what constitutes the “quality” of education in various subsystems, and the rankings are not intended to impose a single view on this issue.

7. Be fixed and formatted in a clear and accessible document - a ranking methodology. Any ranking must be accompanied by a document describing its goals and objectives, indicators, indicators and their weights, principles for calculating (defining) indicators and their weights, methods for collecting and processing information, mechanisms for using ranking results.

C) Development of indicators and their weights must:

7. Ensure transparency of the ranking methodology used. The choice of methods (sampling, collection, processing, data analysis, calculation of indicators, actual ranking) and data sources used in the formation of ratings should be transparent, allowing any interested subject to have a complete (reliable) and unambiguous idea about them.

8. Ensure that indicators are selected according to their relevance and validity. The choice of indicators should be based not only on their availability, but also on the ability to reflect the quality and results of the education system. It should be clear why these particular indicators were included, what indicators they are used to calculate, what they represent, and what information requests they work to satisfy.

9. Prioritize, where possible, performance indicators over inputs. Source resources are important because they provide general idea about the educational organization (system) and are often more accessible. Indicators of achieved results, including in terms of creating conditions for students, provide a more accurate assessment of the state and / or quality of an educational organization or system. When compiling rankings, it is important to ensure that the indicators are properly balanced.

10. Clearly define methods for evaluating various indicators and, if possible, limit changes in them. Changes in scoring methods are misleading to all who use ratings. At the same time, in ratings that are of a periodic nature, the need to make changes to the methodology may be due to changes in the social situation itself, including the emergence of new data sources, new quality requirements, etc. When making such changes, it is important to inform in advance and in detail about them participants and consumers of the rating.

FROM) At data collection and processing necessary:

11. Pay due regard to the ethical standards and recommendations set forth in these Principles. For ratings to be credible, those responsible for data collection, processing and validation must maintain objectivity and impartiality.

12. Use verified and updated data whenever possible, such as statistical observation data, results of external assessment procedures, monitoring research data, results of sociological research, etc. These data are known and understandable to participants and consumers of ratings, the costs of their collection are insignificant, they provide an opportunity for adequate comparison.

13. Apply measures to ensure the quality of the ranking processes themselves. The experience gained during the evaluation process should be used to improve the ranking tools and procedures. Therefore, the stage of pilot approbation of the methodology, which precedes the main stage of assessment and rating building, is expedient.

14. Apply organizational methods, which increase the reliability of the ranking. Among these activities it is necessary to include the creation of bodies (expert councils) that provide methodological assistance to the authors of the rating, assess the quality of the ranking methodology and control the quality of the assessment procedures. It is preferable that members of the public and professional experts, including international ones, be involved in the work of expert councils.

15. Take into account the diversity of consumer demand and, if possible, provide consumers with a choice of the form of presentation of the rating results. The presentation form should provide clarity (comprehensibility) of the results presented, access to all rating tools (methodology, data sources), as well as the clarity of the results and ease of use. In the presentation of the rating results, it is possible to provide an opportunity for the consumer to decide for himself which specific gravity should have different indicators.

16. Provide accounting diversity of educational organizations through the presentation of contextual data or the construction of ratings by cluster groups.

17. Eliminate or minimize errors in the data presented, as well as provide the possibility of correcting errors. If errors are made, then the participants and consumers of the rating should be informed about them immediately.

18. Ensure the possibility of observing copyright and responsibility of the authors of the methodology for the rating results. When publishing the rating materials, the authors of the methodology should be indicated: organizations or individuals with their contact details

19. Ensure that the possible negative impact of the rating on its participants is minimized. When deciding to publish the rating results, it is necessary to take into account all the risks of their impact on the situation in education and use methods to minimize possible negative consequences.

20. Ranking results should only be used for the purposes stated by the authors.. The use of the results for other purposes can lead to massive distortions not only in the interpretation of the results, but also in the data collected, and also have a significant Negative influence throughout the education system as a whole.

21. Management decisions based on ranking results should be preceded by consultations with professional and expert communities.

Berlin principles for ranking higher education institutions. http://www. ireg-observatory. org

IREG-Ranking Audit. Purpose, Criteria and procedure. IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence, 2011. http://www. ireg-observatory. org/pdf/IREG_audit. pdf

Today, society is in dire need of reliable and transparent information about the quality of services in educational organizations: schools, kindergartens, institutions of additional education, colleges, universities. The issues of assessing the quality of education are of concern to all participants in the educational process, because this is a guarantee of an optimally high standard of living for the population and the basis for increasing the competitiveness of the country as a whole. The procedure for an independent assessment of the quality of education is carried out in relation to the activities of educational organizations and the educational programs they implement in order to verify the compliance of the quality of services provided with the needs of society. Ratings are a popular tool for informing consumers of educational services about the results of an independent assessment of the quality of education.

Rating (English rating - assessment, order, classification) - a numerical or ordinal indicator that displays the importance or significance of a particular object or phenomenon. The list of objects or phenomena with the highest rating is usually called "Top N" or "TOP N", where N is the number of objects in the list, usually a multiple of 10 Wikipedia https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating.

Rating - ranking, prioritization, evaluation, order, classification. Rating means the determination of any evaluation parameter or group of parameters according to a certain evaluation algorithm, according to a given ranking scale by polling a large target group, or a limited group of experts. In fact, the rating is a measure of the popularity of something Dictionary http://www.marketch.ru/marketing_dictionary/marketing_terms_r/rating/.

IN AND. Slobodchikov understands a rating as a subjective assessment of a phenomenon on a given scale. With the help of the rating, various rating scales are built, for example, the assessment of various aspects of labor activity, the popularity of individuals, the prestige of professions, etc. Slobodchikov V.I. Isaev E.I. Fundamentals of psychological anthropology. Psychology of human development, 2000, 7 p.

The rating of educational organizations is a form of presenting the results of the evaluation of the activities of educational organizations or systems, in which the participants in the rating are placed in a certain sequence depending on the ratings received for various indicators of their activities.

First, families are guided by the rating when choosing schools and kindergartens. Such a rating should include only those educational organizations that are available to real consumers, primarily on a territorial basis. Thus, the popular rating does not fully respond to the request of the parent community for the quality of secondary general education.

Thirdly, for the leaders of educational organizations, the rating is a source of information for making managerial decisions, it is a powerful incentive for development, setting new benchmarks.

When rating educational organizations, it is important to remember the conditions that ensure the effectiveness of the system of independent assessment of the quality of education: the subjects of assessment (the public, the media, experts, education authorities, regional quality assessment centers, etc.) and data sources (“closed” and public databases ). Not all information can be used when conducting an independent assessment of the quality of education and rating educational organizations. They must meet standard data requirements: relevance, reliability, completeness. It is also important that the data be presented in a single format, in a single source of information for all rating participants.

However, in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the conditions for the functioning of educational organizations are heterogeneous, thus there is a need to create variable models for building ratings.

In the Novgorod region, ratings are a key element of the motivational strategy for managing results and have been formed since 1990. To build ratings, specific significant indicators are used, which are recognized by the educational community and the population. The results of the ratings enable the employees of the education system to get an accurate idea of ​​the success of their solution of the tasks of educational policy, bonuses for high performance. By means of ratings, the best specialists in the implementation of educational policy are determined to maintain competition and disseminate successful experience in mass practice. Criteria and indicators have been developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the activities of specialists in education management bodies.

For several years, all evaluation indicators reflected the criteria of "accessibility", "quality" and "efficiency" of education. The results included in the criteria base were divided into "general education", "profile", "creative" and "social and personal". When determining the weight coefficient of each indicator, the significance of the result, the complexity of its achievement, and dependence on work efficiency, and not on external factors, were taken into account. Evaluation procedures developed in the Novgorod region were used along with the well-known ones: testing of 4th grade students, sociological monitoring of the quality of educational activities. In addition, the conditions that ensure the availability of quality education were assessed: the availability of the required number of textbooks, qualified teaching staff, equipment, as well as conditions that affect the health of students.

In the future, indicators for assessing the quality of education improved. At the moment, the assessment of the values ​​of indicators is carried out separately by the level of efficiency (the level of performance, the level of efficiency of spending budget funds, the level of assessment by the population of the results of the activities of educational authorities and educational institutions) and by the dynamics of efficiency (the dynamics is defined as the difference between the values ​​of the corresponding indicator in the reporting and base year).

Data analysis is carried out by an expert group consisting of representatives of educational authorities, public organizations and independent experts. In accordance with the assessment of the values ​​of performance indicators (taking into account the results of expert analysis), the rating of the municipal district (urban district) or educational institution in terms of efficiency level, the rating in terms of efficiency dynamics and the final rating are then determined.

In the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, a cluster approach is used, leveling the specific features of educational organizations operating in different conditions (territorial differentiation, differences in the contingent, etc.). Taking into account the characteristics, 8 clusters were identified: innovative educational institutions, large and small urban schools in terms of the number of students in the final grades, rural schools, basic schools, boarding schools, primary schools, evening schools. The criteria are formed on the basis of an analysis of consumer requests for the quality of educational services and are distributed in 9 areas: the quality of education, the content and technology of education, the availability and quality of additional education, the safety and comfort of the educational environment, the equipment of the educational process, the mode of operation of the school, the quality of staffing, openness educational organization, educational opportunities for children with special needs. The criteria for assessing the quality of education contain invariant and variable parts to take into account differences in the differentiation of the cluster approach. Thus, providing each cluster with its own set of criteria, indicators and indicators.

Further, on the basis of the normalized data and weight coefficients, the composite index of each educational organization is calculated. Based on its results, a rating of educational organizations is formed for each cluster separately.

In the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the selection of criteria for assessing the quality of education was carried out based on the results of a population survey and on the basis of statistical data held by the educational authorities. Thus, ratings for schools are built according to the following areas and criteria: quality of education (average results of the Unified State Examination, GIA-9, Regional tests in the Russian language and mathematics, results of participation in the stages of the All-Russian Olympiad for schoolchildren); equipment of the educational process (presence of specialized premises, use of the Internet); safety and comfort (providing medical care, food, security); personnel quality (staffing, skill level); teaching children with special needs.

Ratings for preschool educational organizations are built in the following areas: the availability of educational services (with the exception of paid ones); the quality of staffing; quality of conditions (according to the criteria for organizing space and conditions for maintaining health).

In the Astrakhan region, rating is carried out in four areas, containing the following groups of indicators: indicators for assessing the quality of the conditions for the implementation of general education programs in an institution; indicators for evaluating the results of mastering the main general educational programs, characterizing the minimum level of achievement by students of the region of the current federal state educational standards and regional regulations; indicators for assessing the achievement of the educational qualification based on the results of mastering the main general education programs as the main values ​​characterizing the quality of the general education programs implemented in the region; indicators for evaluating public opinion on the quality of educational services in educational institutions. A comprehensive assessment of the quality of education is carried out on the basis of: the results of a survey of parents of students of educational institutions of the Astrakhan region; standardized procedures for monitoring the quality of general education; data of federal state statistical observation on education; these procedures for licensing and state accreditation of educational institutions; final certification of graduates of the 9th, 11th grades.

Thus, we can conclude that approaches to the formation of ratings of educational organizations are different in each specific region of the Russian Federation due to the peculiarities of their functioning and territorial location.

Rating serves as the basis for identifying and analyzing problems that slow down the pace of implementation of educational policy, for setting priorities when setting new tasks and optimizing the mechanisms for their solution. Ratings form a competitive environment, which in turn accelerates the solution of priority tasks, identifies best practices for solving problems with a view to further dissemination, increases public awareness of the results of ongoing reforms, inspiring public confidence.

The results of an independent assessment of the quality of education and rating can be used in forecasting and comparative analysis of the effectiveness of various organizational models and educational systems, innovative design, in the development of management methods and public-private partnerships, intra- and intersectoral work, as well as combining the efforts of management bodies, parent public and expert community in the development of education.