67864 A WORLD BANK STUDY The Education System in the Russian Federation E D U C AT I O N B R I E F 2 0 1 2 Denis Nikolaev and Dmitry Chugunov W O R L D B A N K S T U D Y The Education System in the Russian Federation Education Brief 2012 Denis Nikolaev Dmitry Chugunov © 2012 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / International Development Association or The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org 1 2 3 4 15 14 13 12 World Bank Studies are published to communicate the results of the Bank’s work to the development community with the least possible delay. The manuscript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formally-edited texts. This volume is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The �ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judg- ment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemina- tion of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full a ribution to the work is given. For permission to reproduce any part of this work for commercial purposes, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522- 2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. ISBN (paper): 978-0-8213-9514-1 ISBN (electronic): 978-0-8213-9515-8 DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9514-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been requested. Contents Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................ix Introduction ...............................................................................................................................xi 1. Country Context.................................................................................................................. 1 Organization of the Education System............................................................................. 1 Public Spending on Education .......................................................................................... 1 2. Preschool Education and Early Childhood Development .......................................... 6 Current Situation and Trends ............................................................................................ 6 Recent and Ongoing Reforms .......................................................................................... 12 Key Problems and Challenges ......................................................................................... 15 Policy Options .................................................................................................................... 16 3. Primary and Secondary Education ................................................................................ 19 Current Situation and Trends .......................................................................................... 19 Recent and Ongoing Reforms .......................................................................................... 29 Key Problems and Challenges ......................................................................................... 33 Policy Options .................................................................................................................... 36 4. Vocational Education and Training .............................................................................. 39 Current Situation and Trends .......................................................................................... 39 Recent and Ongoing Reforms .......................................................................................... 44 Key Problems and Challenges ......................................................................................... 45 Policy Options .................................................................................................................... 46 5. Higher Education.............................................................................................................. 48 Current Situation and Trends .......................................................................................... 48 Recent and Ongoing Reforms .......................................................................................... 56 Key Problems and Challenges ......................................................................................... 57 Policy Options .................................................................................................................... 59 6. Lifelong Learning ............................................................................................................. 61 Condition and Development Trends .............................................................................. 61 State Policy ......................................................................................................................... 63 Staff Training (Financing and Coverage) ....................................................................... 64 Socially Deprived Groups of People ............................................................................... 67 Policy Options .................................................................................................................... 68 7. Appendixes ........................................................................................................................ 73 Appendix A. Reference Statistics—Non�nance ........................................................... 75 Appendix B. Reference Statistics—Finance ................................................................... 81 iii iv Contents Figures Figure 1.1. Structure of the education system in the Russian Federation...........................2 Figure 1.2. Structure of education �nancing in the Russian Federation .............................3 Figure 1.3. Public spending on education in the Russian Federation as a share of GDP, by level of education (percent) ...............................................................................3 Figure 1.4. Total public spending on education as a share of GDP and total public expenditures in the Russian Federation (percent) (2003–10) ........................................4 Figure 1.5. Distribution of OECD and partner countries by GDP per capita and share of expenditures allocated to education in terms of GDP (including private investments in education) (2006) .........................................................................4 Figure 2.1. Birth rate projections in the Russian Federation (per 1,000 inhabitants) ........6 Figure 2.2. Gross enrollment to preschool educational institutions in the Russian Federation by type of se lement (adjusted for 5-to-6-year-olds studying in primary school) (2000–10, percent) ...................................................................................7 Figure 2.3. Number of children in preschool educational institutions and number of 1-to-6-year-olds in the Russian Federation (2000–10, thousand persons) ..............7 Figure 2.4. Distribution of preschool educational institutions in the Russian Federation by type of se lement (thousand units, 2000–09)........................................8 Figure 2.5. Distribution of staff in preschool educational institutions in the Russian Federation by position (percent) ........................................................................9 Figure 2.6. Dynamics of student-teacher ratio in the Russian Federation in preschool education (persons, 1992–2010) .......................................................................9 Figure 2.7. Total public expenditure in the Russian Federation on education as percent of GDP, at pre-primary level of education (ISCED 0) (2008) ........................10 Figure 2.8. Total public spending (top chart) and per student expenditure (bo om chart) in preschool education in the Russian Federation ............................................11 Figure 2.9. Public expenditure on preschool education in the Russian Federation (real spending from consolidated budget, percent) (2003–10) ...................................12 Figure 2.10. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by GRP per capita and enrollment to preschool education (2009) ..............................................................13 Figure 2.11. Distribution of autonomous institutions in the Russian Federation by sphere (top chart) and distribution of autonomous institutions in education sphere (bo om chart) (2010) ............................................................................................14 Figure 2.12. Number of births in the Russian Federation (million newborns) ................16 Figure 3.1. Gross coverage ratio at primary and secondary education levels and overall in the Russian Federation (2000–08) ..................................................................19 Figure 3.2. Distribution of students studying in primary and secondary schools (face-to-face) by type of se lement in the Russian Federation (million persons, 2000–10) ..............................................................................................................20 Figure 3.3. Distribution of primary and secondary schools in the Russian Federation by type of se lement (thousand units, 2000–10).......................................20 Figure 3.4. Distribution of primary and secondary schools in the Russian Federation by type of school (thousand units, 2000–08)..............................................21 Figure 3.5. Dynamics of growth of gymnasium and lyceum network in the Russian Federation (units, 1992–2010) ...........................................................................21 Contents v Figure 3.6. Distribution of teachers in primary and secondary schools in the Russian Federation by type of se lement (thousand persons, 2000–10) ...................22 Figure 3.7. Distribution of school principals in primary and secondary schools in the Russian Federation by type of se lement (thousand persons, 2002/03– 2009/10 school year) .......................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3.8. Structure of teaching staff in Russian Federation public schools by professional experience (percent, 2008/09 school year) ...............................................23 Figure 3.9. Share of pension-age teachers in Russian Federation public schools, by type of se lement (percent, 2008/09 school year) .........................................................23 Figure 3.10. Dynamics of growth of gymnasium and lyceum network in the Russian Federation (units, 1992–2010) ...........................................................................23 Figure 3.11. Dynamics of student-teacher ratio in primary and secondary education the Russian Federation by type of se lement (persons, 2000–10) ...........24 Figure 3.12. Average class size in primary and lower secondary schools the Russian Federation (2009) ................................................................................................24 Figure 3.13. Public spending on general education from the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation (left axis) and per student expenditure on general education (right axis) (current and �xed 2003 prices) (2003–10) ................................25 Figure 3.14. Annual secondary education expenditure in the Russian Federation by educational institutions per student relative to GDP per capita (2007) ...............26 Figure 3.15. Total public spending and per student expenditure in primary and secondary education in the Russian Federation ...........................................................27 Figure 3.16. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by GRP per capita and public spending on primary and secondary education (RUR, 2009) .................27 Figure 3.17. Monthly schoolteacher remuneration in the Russian Federation in current and �xed prices (RUR, left axis) and ratio of teacher salary to average salary in the economy (right axis) (2000–10) .................................................................28 Figure 3.18. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by average wage in the regional systems of school education (RUR, current prices) ................................29 Figure 3.19. Comparison of regions in the Russian Federation by number of educational institutions transferred to autonomous status (2010) .............................33 Figure 3.20. PISA scores of students in the Russian Federation (2000, 2003, 2006, 2009).....................................................................................................................................34 Figure 4.1. Gross coverage of initial and secondary vocational education and training in the Russian Federation (percent, 2000–10) .................................................39 Figure 4.2. Number of students in initial and secondary vocational educational institutions and number of people at age 15–17 and 17–19 in the Russian Federation (thousand persons, 2000–10) ........................................................................40 Figure 4.3. Number of state initial and secondary vocational educational institutions in the Russian Federation (units, 2000–10) ...............................................40 Figure 4.4. Structure of staff in IVET institutions by position in the Russian Federation (percent) .......................................................................................................... 41 Figure 4.5. Number of teaching staff in public SVET institutions in the Russian Federation (thousand persons, 2000–10) ........................................................................41 Figure 4.6. Dynamics of student-teacher ratio (students to teaching staff) in initial and secondary vocational institutions in the Russian Federation (2000-10).............42 vi Contents Figure 4.7. Total public spending (left axis) and per student expenditure (right axis) in vocational education in the Russian Federation .............................................42 Figure 4.8. Public expenditure on vocational education per student as share of GDP per capita, share of total public expenditure on education, and share of total public expenditure in the Russian Federation (percent) (2003–10) ...................43 Figure 4.9. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by GRP per capita and public spending on VET (RUR, 2009) .....................................................................44 Figure 4.10. Enrollment in state VET in 2010 by sources of �nancing in the Russian Federation (thousands persons) .......................................................................44 Figure 5.1. Gross coverage by and enrollment in higher education in the Russian Federation (2000–10, percent) ..........................................................................................48 Figure 5.2. Distribution of students in higher education institutions by type of ownership and form of education in the Russian Federation (thousand persons, 1990–2010) ...........................................................................................................49 Figure 5.3. Number of graduates from upper-secondary schools (state and private) and entrants to higher education institutions (state and private) in the Russian Federation (thousand persons, 1992–2010) ..............................................49 Figure 5.4. Distribution of entrants to higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by form of education (thousand persons, 2000–10)..................................50 Figure 5.5. Distribution of higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by form of ownership (units, 2000–10) ...........................................................................50 Figure 5.6. Distribution of public higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by level of subordination (2008/09, percent) .............................................51 Figure 5.7. Distribution of public higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by type (2008/09, percent) ............................................................................51 Figure 5.8. Distribution of staff in public higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by position (percent, school years 2000/01 and 2008/09) .........52 Figure 5.9. Public spending on higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by type (RUR, 2006–08) ................................................................................52 Figure 5.10. Total public spending (left axis) and per student expenditure (right axis) in higher education in the Russian Federation ....................................................53 Figure 5.11. Public expenditure on higher education in the Russian Federation per student as share of GDP per capita, as share of total public expenditure on education, and as share of total public expenditure (percent, 2003–10) ..............53 Figure 5.12. Per student expenditures on higher education in OECD and partner countries (2007, US$, PPP) ...............................................................................................54 Figure 5.13. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by average wage in the regional higher education systems (RUR, 2009).....................................................54 Figure 5.14. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by average wage in the regional higher education systems (RUR; 2002, 2005, 2010) ................................55 Figure 6.1. Participation in nonformal education and training in the Russian Federation (percent of total respondents aged 25–64, reference period 12 months, 2007) .....................................................................................................................61 Figure 6.2. Participation in informal education and training in the Russian Federation (percent of total respondents aged 25–64, reference period 12 months, 2007) .....................................................................................................................62 Contents vii Figure 6.3. Motivation of adults to participate in lifelong learning in the Russian Federation ...........................................................................................................................65 Figure 6.4. Sources of �nancing in lifelong learning in the Russian Federation..............66 Figure 6.5. Average monthly costs of organizations for professional education per worker in the Russian Federation (US$) ........................................................................66 Figure 6.6. Budgetary expenditure for retraining and upgrading quali�cations in the Russian Federation (US$ million) .............................................................................67 Tables Table 2.1. Public expenditure on ECEC in the Russian Federation, 2003–10 ...................11 Table 2.2. Distribution of autonomous institutions in the Russian Federation by sphere and subordination (data from July 1, 2010) ......................................................13 Table 3.1. Public spending on general education per one student in the regions of the Russian Federation (RUR, current prices) (2002–10) .............................................28 Table A1. Number of students in educational institutions in the Russian Federation ...75 Table A2. Number of educational institutions in the Russian Federation ........................77 Table A3. Gross coverage by education in the Russian Federation, percent (by level of education, calculations based on full-time equivalents) ................................79 Table A4. Ratio of students to teaching staff in the Russian Federation, by type of institution (by level of education, calculations based on full-time equivalents) ......80 Table B1. Basic reference statistics in the Russian Federation ............................................81 Table B2. Expenditures from consolidated budget of the Russian Federation (thousand RUR) .................................................................................................................82 Table B3. Annual government expenditure in the Russian Federation by educational institutions relative to total public expenditure on education ..............83 Table B4. Annual government expenditure in the Russian Federation per student by educational institutions relative to GDP per capita ................................................83 Acknowledgments T his report is the result of a collaborative effort of the World Bank Russian education team. The main authors of the report are Denis Nikolaev and Dmitry Chugunov, education consultants for the World Bank. Of greatest importance are the preceding reports for 2009 and 2010, prepared with the assistance of Isak Froumin (Lead Education Specialist), Kirill Vasiliev (Education Specialist), and Tigran Shmis (Education Specialist) and their helpful comments during 2012 report development. The team is indebted to Irina Reshetnikova and Julia Sazonova for team assistance. Special thanks are owed to Tobias Linden (Lead Education Specialist) and Xiaonan Cao (Knowledge and Learning Coordinator) for reviewing this report and for making suggestions for its improvement. The report was �nalized under the helpful guidance of Soren Nellemann (Senior Educa- tion Specialist and Russia HD CSC). Full responsibility for errors and misinterpretations remains, however, with the authors. Denis Nikolaev Dmitry Chugunov ix Introduction T his study is intended for non-Russian researchers wanting to get familiar with the education system of the Russian Federation and more generally for all those in- volved in education and education policy. It does not represent exhaustive information on the Russian education system and all problems and challenges existing there, but briefly describes its main features. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 retains its main special feature, which is the combination of statistical data and qualitative information to describe the organization and functioning of the Russian education system. The study provides an up-to-date array of indicators to measure the current state of education in the country. The indicators provide information on the human and �- nancial resources invested in education, and on how education and learning subsystems operate and evolve. The analytical parts of the report examine key problems and challenges faced by education system administrators and policy makers in the education sphere. The report has the following structure. The opening chapter provides an overview of the education system in Russia and briefly reviews the most evident emergent trends. Chapters 2 through 5 are devoted to description of education system by level. The chap- ters are arranged by ascending order of educational level and each chapter presents information in a progression from the most general to the most speci�c. First, data on the current state of education system is provided. They characterize the human and �nan- cial resources allocated to education, describe the network of educational institutions across the country, and show regional disparities of spending on education. Next in each section key problems and challenges are examined; the focus is mainly made on access to and quality of educational services. Third, information on recent and ongoing reforms in the education sphere addresses each subsector separately and de�nes features typical for each of them. Fourth, there is discussion of policy options and analysis of what can be improved in the Russian education sphere. Finally, section 6 is devoted to lifelong learning. First, the section focuses on the condition of and development trends in lifelong learning. Then it examines the state of policy, staff training including �nancing and coverage, and learning for socially de- prived groups of people. The section concludes with policy options and possible mea- sures for improvement. xi CHAPTER 1 Country Context Organization of the Education System Figure 1.1 gives an overview of the education system in Russia for mainstream schooling from the pre-primary level up to higher education. The �gure excludes post-graduate level education and doctoral studies.1 At the pre-primary level, children are admi ed into the school system from the ages of 1 to 6. Compulsory education starts at the age of 6 (6 years and 6 month according to Russian legislation2) and generally corresponds to entry into primary school. Begin- ning from September 1, 2007 compulsory full-time education lasts for eleven years and continues up to the age of 17. The general education school system of Russia consists of nine years of basic general education (primary and lower secondary education) and two years of upper secondary education, which leads to the certi�cation of complete second- ary education. Basic general education is almost always provided in single-structure schools without a transition between primary and lower secondary levels, up to the age of 15. The end of basic general education coincides with the transition between lower and upper secondary education. There are two main options in upper-secondary education:3 the general education option, which prepares the pupils for higher education, and the vocational option, which prepares pupils both for working life and for higher education. These different options are organized into separate programs and institutions, and the students have to opt for one or the other. In 2003 Russia signed the Bologna Declaration, which launched the process of mi- grating from Russian traditional tertiary education model to a modern degree structure in line with Bologna Process model. In October 2007 in Russia a law was enacted that replaced the traditional �ve-year model of education with a two-tiered approach: a four- year bachelor degree followed by a two-year master’s degree. In 2010 the admission to the traditional �ve-year programs was stopped. By 2014, in Russia there should be no �ve-year programs students excluding just a few specializations. Public Spending on Education The structure of educational �nancing in Russia has changed during recent decade with li le changes at preschool and vocational levels (1–2 percent fluctuation) and rather dra- matic increase/decrease at higher/primary and secondary levels (�gure 1.2). 1 2 A World Bank Study Figure 1.1. Structure of the education system in the Russian Federation AGE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 2 years 4 years 2 years EARLY CHILDHOOD PRESCHOOL PRIMARY LOWER UPPER HIGHER HIGHER DEVELOPMENT SECONDARY SECONDARY (BACHELOR DEGREE) (MASTER DEGREE) 5-6 years HIGHER (SPECIALIST DEGREE) 1-2 years 3-4 years SECONDARY VOCATIONAL - Compulsory education 2-3 years INITIAL VOCATIONAL Source: Authors’ estimations based on information of Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 3 Figure 1.2. Structure of education �nancing in the Russian Federation 2010 17 44 3 5 20 11 2009 16 45 4 6 20 10 2007 14 45 4 5 18 14 Year 2005 14 44 5 5 16 15 2003 15 50 6 5 13 11 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Preschool Primary and Secondary IVET SVET Higher Other Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Treasury of the Russian Federation. Note: Figure shows share of expenditures in the total government spending on education, by level (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010). IVET = initial vocational education and training. SVET = secondary vocational education and training. Public expenditure on education by educational level differs. The total public ex- penditure on education allocated to primary and secondary (general) education rep- resents a greater proportion of GDP than expenditure on other educational levels, but never goes above 2.0 percent (in 2009) (�gure 1.3). The share of public expenditures allocated to education sector states is approxi- mately 11–12 percent; it reached its maximum in 2004 (12.7 percent) and then slightly dropped to 10.9 percent in 2010. But in terms of country GDP the share of public expen- Figure 1.3. Public spending on education in the Russian Federation as a share of GDP, by level of education (percent) 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 Percent 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Other Preschool Primary and secondary Vocational Higher Source: Authors’ calculations based on the data of Treasury of the Russian Federation, and Federal Ser- vice for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. 4 A World Bank Study Figure 1.4. Total public spending on education as a share of GDP and total public expenditures in the Russian Federation (percent) (2003–10) 14 12 12.7 12.0 12.4 11.8 11.8 11.8 10 11.2 10.9 Percent 8 6 4.6 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.3 3.6 3.5 3.7 4 2 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Public spending on education, total (% of total public expenditures) Public spending on education (% of GDP) Source: Authors’ calculations based on the data of Treasury of the Russian Federation, and Federal Ser- vice for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. ditures on education is growing: it has increased from 3.6 percent in 2003 to 4.3 percent in 2010 (�gure 1.4). This is a result of highly raised public expenditures within slow growth of GDP. The ratio of education expenditures to a country’s GDP de�nes the share of national wealth that a country spends on its education system. Russia spends on education the same part of its GDP as countries with similar economic development—5.5 percent of GDP in 2006 (expenditures include private investments in education). By international compari- son that indicator varies from 3 percent in Turkey to 8 percent in Iceland (�gure 1.5). Figure 1.5. Distribution of OECD and partner countries by GDP per capita and share of expenditures allocated to education in terms of GDP (including private investments in education) (2006) 9 Public spending on education (% of GDP) 8 7 6 Russia 5 4 3 2 5,000 15,000 25,000 35,000 45,000 55,000 GDP per capita, US$ PPP Source: Authors’ calculations based on the data of Agranovich and Kovaleva, 2010. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 5 Notes 1. According to Russian legislation post-graduate education and doctoral studies in Russia are not considered as formal stages of education, but as science activity. 2. According to Federal Law on Education. 3. In practice there are more options. For example, students after completion of upper-secondary education may go straight to the labor market. References Abdrahmanova, G., Gohberg, L., Zabaturina, I., Kovaleva, G., Kovaleva, N., Kuznetsova, V., Ozerova, O., Shuvalova, O. 2010. Education in the Russian Federation: 2010. An- nual Statistical Publication. Higher School of Economics. Moscow: State Univer- sity, Higher School of Economics. Agranovich M., Kovaleva G. 2010. “Russian Education in the Context of International Indicators.� Analytical report, Moscow. Russian Federation. 1992. Federal Law of the Russian Federation from July 10, 1992 N3266-1 “On Education� (with edits from December 27, 2009). CHAPTER 2 Preschool Education and Early Childhood Development Current Situation and Trends Coverage and Demography According to data published by the Russian Federal State Statistics Service, the birth rate has grown year-on-year since 2006 by an estimated 8.3 percent, reaching currently 12.5 per 1,000 of population (see �gure 2.1), and is now greater than the European Union average of 9.90 per 1,000 people (2010). The Russian Ministry of Health and Social Af- fairs announced that in 2010, the population of Russia had increased; at the same time the birth rate had not yet equalized with the annual death rate. The population increased due to growth of in-migration. However, fertility is increasing and mortality continues to decline in Russia. By far the largest concentration of population is in Moscow, a city of more than 10 million inhabitants. A endance at a preschool establishment is optional in Russia; parents are free to enroll their child if they wish. However, the state is obliged to provide parents with the services if they are requested.1 High demand in preschool services generates inequalities in this area—coverage by preschool services varies from 9 percent to 86 percent among Russian regions. Average coverage of preschool educational institutions of children at the age of 1–7 in Russia was 52 percent in 2000. The situation has insigni�cantly im- proved in recent years: in 2010 59.4 percent of preschool age children were covered by services in preschool educational institutions. Figure 2.1. Birth rate projections in the Russian Federation (per 1,000 inhabitants) 14 13.2 13.1 13 12.9 12.8 12.7 13 12.5 12.3 Number of births per 12 1,000 inhabitants 12 12.5 11.6 12.3 11.3 11.8 12 11.8 10.9 11 11.7 11.5 10.6 11.3 11.1 10.3 10.1 11.1 9.9 9.7 10.8 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 10 10.5 10.2 10.5 10.3 9.9 9.7 10 9 9.5 9.7 9.5 9.2 9.3 9.1 8.9 9 8.9 8.9 8.9 9 8 8.6 8.3 8.1 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.9 7 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.7 6 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 11 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Year Low Average High Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. 6 The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 7 A breakdown of preschool education coverage by type of se lement reveals two im- portant points. First, the situation is continuously more favorable in urban areas, where enrollment has been almost 30 percent higher than in rural areas since 2000 (�gure 2.2). Second, enrollment substantially varies among Russian regions: from 86 percent in the North-East (Chukotka Autonomous Region) to 8.8 percent (2009) in the South-West (In- gush Republic).2 The changes in preschool enrollment are in line with the broader demographic trends in Russia (�gure 2.3), mainly the rise in the birth rate recorded in Russia since the end of the 1990s. Figure 2.2. Gross enrollment to preschool educational institutions in the Russian Federation by type of settlement (adjusted for 5-to-6-year-olds studying in primary school) (2000–10, percent) 80 66% 66% 66% 67% 67% 68% 68% 67% 70 62% 63% 64% 60 58% 58% 59% 59% 61% 60% 50 56% 57% 58% 57% Percent 55% 40 41% 43% 43% 30 37% 39% 40% 35% 36% 37% 33% 34% 20 10 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Overall Urban areas Rural areas Sources: Data for 2000–08: Abdrahmanova et al. (2010). Data for 2009–10: authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Figure 2.3. Number of children in preschool educational institutions and number of 1-to-6-year-olds in the Russian Federation (2000–10, thousand persons) 10,000 9,000 8,000 9,153 8,505 8,824 7,000 8,131 7,932 8,112 8,306 7,780 7,696 7,743 7,928 6,000 Number 5,000 4,000 5,105 5,228 5,388 4,713 4,906 4,263 4,246 4,267 4,321 4,423 4,530 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Number of children (1-6 years) Number of preschool students Sources: Data for 2000–08: Abdrahmanova et al. (2010). Data for 2009–10: authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. 8 A World Bank Study By international comparison, preschool enrollment in Russia falls between the rates for developed and developing countries, with 59 percent net enrollment of boys and girls 3–5 years old. The average enrolment rate for children 3–4-years old is 80 percent for the EU19 but only 57 percent for OECD countries not in the European Union (OECD 2010). Institutional Structure and Scale The number of preschool educational institutions has decreased in the period 2000–09 by 17 percent in rural areas and 5 percent in urban areas (with overall decrease of 10 percent). Small institutions were either closed or consolidated (�gure 2.4). Figure 2.4. Distribution of preschool educational institutions in the Russian Federation by type of settlement (thousand units, 2000–09) 60 50 Thousand units 40 22.5 21.7 21.1 20.5 20.2 20.1 19.6 18.9 18.8 18.5 30 20 28.2 27.5 27.1 26.7 26.5 26.4 26.1 26.2 26.8 26.8 10 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Urban Rural Sources: Data for 2000–08: Abdrahmanova et al. (2010). Data for 2009: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Cadres The quali�cation requirements to staff employed in preschool education in Russia are lower than in developed countries. The vocational degree is enough to start and con- tinue a career as a kindergarten teacher. Several studies in regions show that there is a signi�cant share (30–60 percent, varying by region) of teachers with higher education degrees. In terms of gender the preschool system in Russia is the most feminized; in many cases there are few or no men in teaching. Most of employed men have servicing professions. There is also no speci�c policy to a ract more men in the system. Hence, there is a certain need to develop new policies aimed at increasing the quali�cation of ECD teaching staff and caregivers as well as a racting more men in this profession. Despite the decrease in the number of educational institutions, there has been a signi�cant increase in the number of staff in preschool establishments. Most of this rise is due to a signi�cant increase in nonteaching staff (�gure 2.5), which has slightly de- creased the student-teacher ratio (students to all staff), and has slightly increased the student-teaching staff ratio (�gure 2.6). The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 9 Figure 2.5. Distribution of staff in preschool educational institutions in the Russian Federation by position (percent) 2000 2005 2008 8.0% 7.1% 10.0% 19.8% 21.8% 19.9% 72.1% 71.1% 70.1% Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. The student-to-teacher ratio in preschool educational institutions was 8.9 in 2010 in Russia, which is signi�cantly below OECD and EU19 average (14.9 and 13.9, respec- tively) (OECD 2010). Given this consideration, one may alert Russia’s authorities that low student-teacher ratio may negatively affect efficiency and quality of services in ECD. Figure 2.6. Dynamics of student-teacher ratio in the Russian Federation in preschool education (persons, 1992–2010) 10 8 8.7 8.7 8.9 8.0 7.8 7.7 8.0 6 7.4 7.2 7.0 7.4 6.8 6.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.2 Ratio 4 2 0 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Year Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. Note: Figure shows ratio of students to teachers in full time equivalent. Financing The volume of government spending has signi�cantly increased over the past 6 years, growing almost four times from RUR 72 billion in 2003 to RUR 287 billion in 2009. This translates into an average annual increase of 26 percent. However, in �xed 2003 prices the increase in preschool �nancing has been signi�cantly smaller, growing about two- fold during that period. See �gure 2.7 from the OECD Family Database, which shows the level of funding across OECD member countries. 10 A World Bank Study Figure 2.7. Total public expenditure in the Russian Federation on education as percent of GDP, at pre-primary level of education (ISCED 0) (2008) 1.4 1.13 1.2 0.96 0.91 0.88 0.85 1.0 Percent of GDP 0.75 0.72 0.66 0.64 0.8 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.57 0.56 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.46 0.46 0.6 0.38 0.36 0.33 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.4 0.2 0.0 un d D ary Bu rk ia de B e ia tio u m S w 10 en F n n– e C 8 Po a Es d ov i t h ia R nia N lic ay R 27 G blic y ov y ia l Au g he ia U Fin s d ni ten s n n om nd n xe ga an l nd te an ai c 0 i n ur te lan i pa Ita ar tv at n en et str d ste a ub ra ran w 20 ed 20 la ch EU la Sp to ak u a Lu ortu ec ta g m ra l g i Sw gd bo u La ro m rla el lg Ja or er ep ep S en n– Ic er m itz Sl H P Ki d tio L h ni N te Li ze de Sl C Fe Fe U an an si si us us R R Sources: Data for Russia: authors’ calculations based on data of the Treasury of the Russian Federation, and Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Data for other countries: authors’ calculations based on the Eurostat database, h p://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 11 In 2008 Russia spent 0.61 percent of GDP on preschool education (ISCED 0), which is higher than EU average (EU27 average was 0.54 percent of GDP in 2008). Evident positive trend in Russia is the increasing share of GDP allocated to preschool educa- tion and early childhood development (table 2.1 and �gure 2.8). It is worth mentioning that Russia’s expenditures on ECD include 6-year-old children, although in many OECD countries these children are already in primary school. Table 2.1. Public expenditure on ECEC in the Russian Federation, 2003–10 Public expenditure Public expenditure on ECEC Public expenditure on ECEC on ECEC in Russia as in Russia as % of total state in Russia as % of public Year % of GDP expenditures expenditures on education 2003 0.54 1.82 15.16 2004 0.54 1.96 15.45 2005 0.52 1.66 14.09 2006 0.54 1.74 14.02 2007 0.57 1.67 14.12 2008 0.61 1.80 15.30 2009 0.74 1.81 16.15 2010 0.72 1.86 16.97 Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Figure 2.8. Total public spending (top chart) and per student expenditure (bottom chart) in preschool education in the Russian Federation 2,500 Expenditure per student, preschool (US$, fixed 2003 prices) 2,000 Expenditure per student, preschool Expenditure (US$) (US$, current prices) 1,500 1,000 500 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year 12,000,000 Public spending on education, preschool 10,000,000 (US$ thousand, current prices) Expenditure (US$) 8,000,000 Public spending on education, preschool (US$ thousand, fixed 2003 prices) 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, Treasury of the Rus- sian Federation, and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. 12 A World Bank Study Figure 2.9. Public expenditure on preschool education in the Russian Federation (real spending from consolidated budget, percent) (2003–10) 25 20.0 20 19.0 18.3 17.5 16.6 16.4 16.6 17.0 15 17.0 Percent 15.5 16.2 15.2 15.3 14.1 14.0 14.1 12.0 12.7 12.4 10 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.2 10.9 5 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Expenditure per student, preschool (% of GDP per capita) Public spending on education, preschool (% of public expenditure on education) Public spending on education, total (% of total public expenditures) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, and Treasury of the Russian Federation. Per-student investment on preschool educational institutions as a share of GDP per capita has increased by 4 percent points in 2003–09 (�gure 2.9). This amount has re- mained a relatively constant share of government spending on education. Regional Differentiation Total regional expenditure on education allocated to the preschool level is generally less than 1 percent of GDP (0.71 percent in 2010). Regions on average spend 24 percent of their gross regional product (GRP)3 per capita annually on preschool student. In 2009, the rate varied from 2.4 percent in the Center (Tyumen Oblast) to 75.7 percent in the South (Tuva Republic) (see �gure 2.10). One common feature typical for almost all Rus- sian regions is the higher enrollment ratio in those with greater amount of GRP allocated to one citizen. Recent and Ongoing Reforms Granting of Autonomous Status to Kindergartens Under the new Russian Budgetary Code issued on January 1, 2009 budgetary institu- tions (including educational) are granted an opportunity to receive the status of “au- tonomous institution.� Such a step allows administrators of those public establishments to manage resources and to implement their own development strategies. Kindergartens in Russia have been working on a partially paid basis from the early 1990s. Parents co�nance the programs by paying amounts calculated by the municipali- ties (basically these payments for care services were not more than 20 percent of the full cost and educational programs are coming at no cost), making kindergartens the �rst educational institutions that have learned how to operate with off-budget money by The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 13 Figure 2.10. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by GRP per capita and enrollment to preschool education (2009) 350,000 300,000 GRP per capita, RUR 250,000 Russia 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Enrollment to preschool education, percent Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, and Treasury of the Russian Federation. offering various additional paid services. Kindergartens are compact, manageable in- stitutions closely connected with the consumers—that is, families. Because of all these reasons kindergartens more often receive the status of autonomous institution (see table 2.2 and �gure 2.11). Table 2.2. Distribution of autonomous institutions in the Russian Federation by sphere and subordination (data from July 1, 2010) Regional subordination Municipal subordination Total Science 16 1 17 Education, including: 274 632 906 primary and secondary schools, 137 99 236 nonformal educational centers Kindergartens 2 533 535 institutions of initial and secondary 135 — 135 vocational education Health 22 6 28 Culture 132 76 208 Social protection 227 6 233 Population employment 34 2 36 Sports 90 60 150 Other spheres 639 120 759 Total 1,434 903 2,337 Source: Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation. 14 A World Bank Study Figure 2.11. Distribution of autonomous institutions in the Russian Federation by sphere (top chart) and distribution of autonomous institutions in education sphere (bottom chart) (2010) Other spheres 32% Education Sports 39% 6% Employment service Social 2% protection 10% Culture 9% Health Science 1% 1% Institutions of initial and secondary Kindergartens vocational education 59% 15% Primary and secondary schools, nonformal educational centers 26% Source: Authors’ calculations based on the data of Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation. Attempts to Solve the Enrollment Problem In the situation of places shortage in kindergartens, regional authorities have developed several measures to solve the enrollment problem. A good and popular one is restoring of old kindergarten buildings that had been either privatized by entrepreneurs or leased to state organization in the 1990s. Restoring of buildings that are in private ownership is the most complicated process. Beside legal and juridical invasion it requires huge ad- ditional �nancing. In some cases municipal authorities �nd it cheaper to build a new educational institution than buying it from private organizations. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 15 Buildings that stayed in municipal property are being reassigned back to kindergar- tens and preschool educational institutions: lease contracts are being terminated and/ or annulled. The overall activity is being implemented by municipalities in the frame- work of programs and �nanced from regional budgets in the form of targeted transfers (subsidies). SUBSTITUTION OF SERVICES DELIVERY BY LUMP SUM GRANTS In some Russian regions (the Perm region for example) compensation schemes have been introduced. These schemes are designed to make money transfers to parents who cannot receive ECD services and are in waiting lists. By giving these compensations to parents regional authorities consider these children as enrolled. Clearly, this scheme is designed to promote the private providers who may receive this money from the fami- lies. However, this doesn’t guarantee that this money will be purposefully used. It is also known that in disadvantaged backgrounds children are unlikely to receive any services for this money, but they need them more than children from middle class and affluent families. More appropriate arrangement might be based on the educational vouchers that in turn might be used to promote flexibility in the sector of ECD services. The main barrier to this is excessive regulations that do not allow private sector to acquire all required documentation for services provision (including sanitary regulations, require- ment to the material environment, �re regulations, and so forth). More flexible approach to regulations including for private provision could enable more provision and increase enrollment. Permission for Private Providers Under the new federal law (N 148-FL of July 17, 2009) indemnity payment (compensa- tion) to parents whose children a end nonstate preschool educational institutions and pay tuition fees has been de�ned. Such changes were made in order to provide equal rights to children in obtaining preschool education; under the Federal Law on Education indemnity payments (compensations) to parents whose children a end state or munici- pal preschool educational institutions are already provided. With all positive signs of this change, this is only a half measure. The compensation for sustaining costs of the private kindergartens will be paid to only those parents whose children a end full day services at licensed kindergartens. The share of such private kindergartens in Russia is 2 percent. At the same time several anecdotal studies show that up to 8 percent of provision (for example, in Samara city) is delivered by kindergartens that are not registered. Thus, the government needs to take measures to legalize such existing private kindergartens. Key Problems and Challenges Access Early childhood development (ECD), especially for children between the ages of 0 and 3, is underdeveloped in Russia. ECD (0–3) programs that are implemented globally have proved to be the most effective economically and socially. Despite these facts, Russian policy makers fail to realize the importance of early-age programs. There are only a few federal programs speci�cally aimed at early-age education. Considering the recent de- mographic changes in Russia discussed above, this lack of federal strategy is troubling. 16 A World Bank Study Russian preschool education shows lower results in terms of enrollment, although it is rather well �nanced. Furthermore, almost all Russian regions face signi�cant shortages of places in kin- dergartens for children between the ages of 4 and 6. The number of required additional places in preschool establishments is growing over time, likewise the demand for ser- vices. However, the public system is not that effective in addressing such fluctuations quickly. Quality The enrollment rates of early age (0–3 years old4) children are decreasing over the years due to high rate of births during recent years (�gure 2.12). Thus, there is a serious risk of service quality declining in preschool educational institutions due to overcrowding of Figure 2.12. Number of births in the Russian Federation (million newborns) 2.2 1.99 2.0 1.79 1.79 1.76 1.8 1.71 Millions of births 1.59 1.61 1.6 1.48 1.5 1.461.48 1.41 1.4 1.38 1.36 1.4 1.3 1.31 1.261.28 1.27 1.21 1.2 1.0 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Year Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. existing preschool establishments. Regions are making efforts to increase the net enroll- ment of this age cohort in order to keep the situation stable. Russian authorities strive to protect quality of the services delivery in many aspects. The existing sanitary and construction norms keep the quality and cost of services at a high-level. At the same time the enrollment problem persists. In a situation of budget de�cits and low provision of private services the further expansion of public services may slow down. This will be contrariwise with demographic trends. Policy Options In developed countries the policy of co�nancing has been frequently supported by fol- lowing arguments: fewer costs to government, quicker operational readiness, more The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 17 choices for consumers, be er application of energy and innovation of the private sector, be er quality due to competition, and so forth. Currently, in Russia, demand for pre- school education far outstrips supply (too many children chasing too few places) making it is difficult to see what competition there can be. In reality, the tendency in situations of high demand is for quality to deteriorate, unless there is strong government regulation. Regardless of the validity of these arguments, the reality is that many municipalities are no longer able to fund free, high-quality services, even when helped by the region. How can public authorities bring in private providers in a manner that ensures quality and equity in the sector? The following are policies formulated in OECD countries that achieve high standards while using services supplied by different providers: ■ Use, in so far as possible, nonpro�t, nongovernmental providers. This is the strategy used widely in continental Europe where some early childhood ser- vices are delivered by church groups, humanitarian bodies, and the like. These providers are called “government dependents� as they are not allowed to charge for services any more than public provision. They must also use authorized cur- ricula and are obligated to follow the same regulations as public services. This alliance between civil society and public services can be positive for parents (greater choice) and for the system as whole since nonpro�t organizations bring new energy and perspective to governmental practices. ■ Impose reasonable registration, licensing, and pedagogical inspections on all services, and encourage accreditation of all services whether public or private— for example, that contact staff working in services should be quali�ed according to set norms: • That recommended group sizes (differentiated according to the age of chil- dren) should be strictly respected; • That groups should never exceed certain number of children (in case of OECD 18) and should be cared for by at least one quali�ed pedagogue and quali�ed child assistant; ■ Place a limit on fees charged by providers who receive government subsidies either directly (through per child grants made to the service) or indirectly (through parent fees subsidized, in turn, by government through tax deduc- tions or vouchers). ■ Pursue equity in enrollments; that is, to impose an obligation on all services receiving public money to enroll a certain quota of children with special needs or from disadvantaged backgrounds. ■ The vision of bringing private partners into early childhood provision is a rac- tive. Private mini-crèches, family day care and child-minders become opera- tional much more quickly than public preschool services, and they can quickly take in children who have been on waiting lists for far too long. However, state and municipal authorities need to regulate such services to ensure that young children and families are treated correctly, and to ensure that the interests of young children are being served. It is not sufficient simply to invite entrepre- neurs to deliver early childhood services; the type of service, how it is delivered and its regulation by the state are critical issues. ■ Effective preschool education requires establishing high-quality and reason- able standards that have been shown to signi�cantly increase child outcomes. 18 A World Bank Study These include developmentally appropriate, research-based learning standards (foundations), linked to the intentional curriculum, and a comprehensive pro- fessional development system, and also culturally and linguistically appropri- ate curriculum that prepares nonnative language learners for success in school. ■ Strict legislation and complicated licensing procedures in the area of construc- tion restrains private sector from construction and sustaining of preschool in- stitutions and slows down the overall process of new kindergartens construc- tion. Thus, in order to improve the situation with enrollment state policy should have focus on less overregulation and more on the educational component. Notes 1. According to Federal Law on Education. 2. According to data of Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. 3. Gross regional product (gross value added at basic prices) is the value of goods and services produced for �nal use. Gross regional product is calculated by production method as the differ- ence between output and intermediate consumption. Certain types of economic transactions are accounted only for the whole country and included in the calculation of Russia’s GDP only. Value added created in the result of multiregional activity does not take into account in calculating GRP. It concerns national defense, government services and other services to the public at large through federal budget. Activities of �nancial intermediaries, especially banks, which are rarely con�ned to certain regions, are not taken into account as well. 4. Nurseries and kindergartens in Russia provide care to children at the age of 1+. References Abdrahmanova, G., Gohberg, L., Zabaturina, I., Kovaleva, G., Kovaleva, N., Kuznetsova, V., Ozerova, O., Shuvalova, O. 2010. Education in the Russian Federation: 2010. An- nual Statistical Publication. State University, Higher School of Economics. Chiganova, S. 2011. “Forming Policy toward Disadvantaged Children.� Krasnoyarsk Center for Hippotherapy, Siberian Social Partnership. h p://sibsocio.ru/ publikacii/71-formirovanie.html. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2010. Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators. h p://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010. Russian Federation. 2009. Federal Law of the Russian Federation from July 10, 1992 N3266-1 “On Education� (with edits from December 27, 2009). ———. 2010. Statistical Yearbook of the Russian Federation—2010. Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Sitnikova, E. 2011. “Development of New Forms of Preschool Education in Tambov Oblast.� Russian journal “Guidance for Preschool Administrators,� No. 5. Voroshilova, I., 2006. “Municipalities Have Nothing to Finance Kindergartens.� Russian journal “Amur’s Truth,� No. 104 (25944). _____. 2009. h p://www.detskii-sad.com/avtonomnie_detskie_sadi. _____. 2010. “Authorities Expect to Return Back All Kindergartens.� h p://kidsland.ru/ news/3769.html. CHAPTER 3 Primary and Secondary Education Current Situation and Trends Coverage Primary and secondary education lays the foundation for the development of a broad range of skills and prepares young people to become lifelong learners and productive members of society. Since 1997 Russia has faced a steep fall in the compulsory-school-age population. The gross coverage ratio for the secondary level of education in Russia is largely in line with the �gures for developed countries and shows a high-level of participation of relevant age cohorts (�gure 3.1). At the primary level, the country has seen a steady rise in enrollments compared to the United States, Finland, Canada, Norway, and the United Kingdom.1 The dropout rate in Russia has been among the lowest in the world. Moreover, the literacy rate has been among the highest in the world reaching almost 100 percent for the past 10 years.2 Figure 3.1. Gross coverage ratio at primary and secondary education levels and overall in the Russian Federation (2000–08) 100 97.9 96.0 95.3 94.6 93.6 93.9 95 93.0 93.4 91.6 90 Percent 100.7 100.7 100.2 100.3 101.0 98.9 98.1 98.2 97.4 97.6 97.2 97.3 94.6 96.3 85 94.4 94.1 94.1 94.7 92.8 93.9 90.6 91.5 90.0 89.1 88.1 88.7 80 84.6 75 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Primary Lower-secondary Upper-secondary Overall Source: Abdrahmanova et al. 2010. Notes: The �gure de�nes levels as follows: Primary education: Ratio of students studying in grades 1–4 to number of 7-to-10-year-olds. Lower secondary education: Ratio of students studying in grades 5–9 to number of 11-to-15-year-olds. Upper secondary education: Ratio of students studying in grades 10–11 (12) and students of initial and secondary vocational schools to number of 16-to-17-year-olds. Overall: Ratio of students studying in grades 1–11 (12) of primary and secondary schools and students master- ing upper-secondary education in initial and secondary vocational schools to number of 7-to-17-year-olds. 19 20 A World Bank Study Institutional Structure and Scale Facing the problem of the fall in the school-age population, the Russian government has started the program of primary and secondary school optimization. A large number of small schools were either closed or consolidated in recent years. The changes were even more visible in rural areas where the number of schools has decreased by almost 25 per- cent over the recent decades (�gures 3.2 and 3.3). Another feature of the restructuring process has been the decrease of the number of primary schools. In 2000–10 their number has been cut by 80 percent (�gure 3.4). The decrease was not only the result of school closures, but was also due to the process of school consolidation to increase system effectiveness. Often primary schools were merged with bigger schools offering several sublevels of general education. Figure 3.2. Distribution of students studying in primary and secondary schools (face- to-face) by type of settlement in the Russian Federation (million persons, 2000–10) 25 20 Million students 6.0 5.9 15 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.7 10 14.0 13.5 12.8 5 12.0 11.2 10.5 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Urban Rural Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Figure 3.3. Distribution of primary and secondary schools in the Russian Federation by type of settlement (thousand units, 2000–10) 70 60 Thousand units 50 45.2 44.8 43.8 42.7 41.6 40 40.4 38.6 36.0 34.3 32.2 30.3 30 20 10 21.3 21.3 21.2 21.0 20.9 20.4 20.1 19.7 19.3 18.8 18.5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Urban Rural Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 21 Figure 3.4. Distribution of primary and secondary schools in the Russian Federation by type of school (thousand units, 2000–08) 70 60 50 Thousand units 36.8 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.2 40 37.0 36.7 36.3 35.4 30 29.9 29.1 20 12.7 12.5 12.2 11.9 11.6 11.3 10.9 10.4 10.0 10 9.6 14.9 14.3 13.4 12.5 11.6 9.2 10.4 9.0 7.0 6.3 3.9 3.1 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2004 Year Primary Primary and lower secondary Primary and (lower and upper) secondary Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. The impact of school optimization on students was an issue for regional authorities. This process covered not only effectiveness of public funds but also growth of education quality, especially in rural areas. First, the program of school buses was introduced. All the students from distant places started to reach their schools by these special buses. Also some schools started to propose boarding schools in order to accommodate the needs of students. Against the background of the shrinking school network the number of special- ized schools in Russia—lyceums and gymnasiums—has been increasing for almost two decades (�gure 3.5). Those schools are provided with be er resources both �nancial Figure 3.5. Dynamics of growth of gymnasium and lyceum network in the Russian Federation (units, 1992–2010) 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,425 1,374 1,407 1,417 Units 1,500 1,278 1,318 1,223 1,216 1,246 1,094 1,141 1,027 1,050 979 1,034 1,000 823 911 743 581 500 839 844 872 917 946 994 1,021 1,045 1,058 657 692 729 774 795 509 568 627 337 447 0 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Year Lyceums Gymnasiums Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. 22 A World Bank Study and personnel, and thus have be er conditions for provision of high-quality educational services. Despite lyceums and gymnasiums comprising approximately 5 percent of the school network in Russia, students studying there represent almost 13 percent of all chil- dren in the general education system. Such a trend will lead to the challenge of growing inequality in education system. Cadres The size of the teaching staff influences total expenditure on educational institutions through teacher compensation. However expenditure is also dependent on the size of the nonteaching staff in the educational sector. The ratio of teaching to nonteaching staff in Russian schools is 3:2 (2010) (see �gures 3.6 and 3.7). Figure 3.6. Distribution of teachers in primary and secondary schools in the Russian Federation by type of settlement (thousand persons, 2000–10) 2,000 Thousands of teaching staff 1,500 1,000 500 0 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Year Urban Rural Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Figure 3.7. Distribution of school principals in primary and secondary schools in the Russian Federation by type of settlement (thousand persons, 2002/03– 2009/10 school year) Thousands of school administrators 60 50 40 32.6 32.6 33.0 32.9 32.8 30.9 29.4 30 30.2 20 10 18.8 18.9 19.0 18.9 18.9 18.2 18.5 17.5 0 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Year Urban Rural Source: Authors’ calculations based on the data of Statistical Portal “Statistics of Russian Education.� The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 23 Professional experience of teaching in school is one of parameters that influence the level of teacher salary. Thus, the greater the experience, the greater is the teacher’s sal- ary. More than half of teachers in Russian schools have professional experience of more than 20 years (�gure 3.8). Moreover, almost 20 percent of them have reached pension age (�gure 3.9). These factors increase wage funds and overall government �nancing in education. Figure 3.8. Structure of teaching Figure 3.9. Share of pension-age staff in Russian Federation public teachers in Russian Federation schools by professional experience public schools, by type of settlement (percent, 2008/09 school year) (percent, 2008/09 school year) More than 20 years Urban Rural 52% 15% 10–20 years 20% 30% 5–10 years 9% Less than 2 years 2–5 years 4% 5% Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Rus- the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Rus- sian Federation. sian Federation. Distribution of teaching staff by gender shows absolute percentage superiority of females—9 out of 10 teachers working in Russian schools are women (�gure 3.10). Figure 3.10. Dynamics of growth of gymnasium and lyceum network in the Russian Federation (units, 1992–2010) 100 9 13 17 80 60 Percent 91 87 40 83 20 0 Urban Rural Total Share of females Share of male Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. 24 A World Bank Study The ratio of students to teaching staff in Russia is 17.0 for primary education and 8.8 for secondary level. For OECD countries average student-teacher ratios are 16:1 for pri- mary and 14:1 for secondary education (OECD 2010). Compared to the OECD averages, there is an excess of teachers at the secondary level, which translates into inefficient use of resources (�gure 3.11). Figure 3.11. Dynamics of student-teacher ratio in primary and secondary education the Russian Federation by type of settlement (persons, 2000–10) 18 15.5 16 13.9 13.8 13.4 Student-teacher ratio 14 12.9 12.5 12.3 12.5 12.0 11.9 12.2 12 12.6 10 11.8 11.7 11.2 10.8 10.4 10.4 8 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.9 8.8 8.6 8.2 8.5 6 7.8 7.4 7.4 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.8 4 2 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Urban Rural Total Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. Note: Figure shows ratio of students studying in public primary and secondary schools to number of employed teachers. Calculation of student-teacher ratio for 2009 and 2010 include only teachers in full- time equivalent. By international comparison average class size is rather small both for primary and lower secondary education (�gure 3.12). Under Russian legislation (Medical Norms and Rules), only the maximum class size is set. The minimum class size is not being regu- Figure 3.12. Average class size in primary and lower secondary schools the Russian Federation (2009) 35 30 25 Class size 20 15 10 5 0 er a n Fr ny Sp e ni P o n d nd Au tes Po stria c h ulg l ep a C lic un a G ary e ep y th ic Tu ia Es ey Fi nia en d om k te lo a us S ing ia an tz m de nd La n ia z e B uga R Ital R mar c ai R ari H ati ec D lan ni S a n i tio Li ubl n K n tv si wi do ub a an rk p te l a Fe erla a ua to d ve g m ro re ra Ja St rt n G ak ov U C Sl U R Primary Lower secondary Source: Authors’ calculations based on the Eurostat database, h p://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/ page/portal/eurostat/home/. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 25 lated legislatively. All this may lead to overall inefficiency in primary and secondary education system. Financing In Russia, more than 75 percent of funds allocated to education are raised and spent at the regional level. Primary and secondary education is totally �nanced from regional budgets (99 percent in 2010). Russian regions spend annually on average RUR 62,000 (US$2,033) on general school student, although spending across regions varies about 12-fold (2010) (�gure 3.13). The volume of government spending has signi�cantly increased over the past 7 years, growing three-fold from RUR 237 billion (US$7.7 billion) in 2003 to RUR 827 bil- lion (US$27.1 billion) in 2010. This translates into an average annual increase of 20 per- cent. However, in �xed 2003 year prices general education �nancing had been increasing till 2007 and afterwards began to decrease. By international comparison Russia spends less than most of European countries. In primary education OECD average spending is US$6,752 per student and in second- ary US$8,346 per student (the EU19 average is US$6,752 and US$8,346, respectively). However, according to its economic development Russian expenditures on secondary education are in line with other countries (�gure 3.14). Disregarding the fall in relative spending on general education represented by its share in total public spending (�gure 3.15, top line), per student investments on primary and secondary schools (as a share of GDP per capita) has increased from 15.0 percent in 2003 to 21.8 percent in 2009 and 19.9 percent in 2010. Figure 3.13. Public spending on general education from the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation (left axis) and per student expenditure on general education (right axis) (current and �xed 2003 prices) (2003–10) 30,000,000 2,500 25,000,000 2,000 US$ thousand PPP 20,000,000 US$ PPP 1,500 15,000,000 1,000 10,000,000 500 5,000,000 0 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Public spending on education, primary and secondary (US$ thousand, current prices) Public spending on education, primary and secondary (US$ thousand, fixed 2003 prices) Expenditure per student, primary and secondary (US$, fixed 2003 prices) Expenditure per student, primary and secondary (US$, current prices) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, Treasury of the Rus- sian Federation, and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. 26 A World Bank Study Figure 3.14. Annual secondary education expenditure in the Russian Federation by educational institutions per student relative to GDP per capita (2007) CHE 14,000 (in equivalent US$ converted using PPPs) BEL DNK 12,000 UKM JPN AUT SWE NOR NLD Expenditure per student FRA USA 10,000 ESP IRL KOR AUS 8,000 ITA PRT ISL SVN DEU FIN 6,000 NZL RUS HUN CZE ISR EST 4,000 POL CHL SVK 2,000 BRA MEX 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 50 ,0 ,0 ,5 ,0 ,5 ,0 ,5 ,0 ,5 ,5 ,0 ,5 ,0 ,5 ,0 ,5 ,0 ,5 ,0 5, 7, 30 12 15 17 22 32 35 37 40 20 25 27 42 45 47 50 52 55 10 GDP per capita (in equivalent US$ converted using PPPs) Source: Authors’ calculations based on OECD 2010. Note: Values are in equivalent U.S. dollars converted using PPPs, secondary education. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 27 Figure 3.15. Total public spending and per student expenditure in primary and secondary education in the Russian Federation 60 50 49.8 50.2 40 44.4 45.9 44.6 44.3 44.8 43.7 Percent 30 21.8 19.9 17.6 18.7 18.8 20 15.0 15.6 15.6 10 12.0 12.7 11.8 12.4 11.8 11.8 11.2 10.9 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Expenditure per student, primary and secondary (% of GDP per capita) Public spending on education, primary and secondary (% of public expenditure on education) Public spending on education, total (% of total public expenditures) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, and Treasury of the Russian Federation. Regional Differentiation As said above general education is �nanced from regional and municipal budgets (about 75 percent of funds come from municipalities and 25 percent from regional budgets). Since the government started implementing the policy of �scal decentralization, the re- gions rich in natural resources have been enjoying substantially more funding per stu- dent while the less wealthy have suffered chronic shortages. Data on educational expenditures on general education show wide variations be- tween Russian regions in their levels of total public expenditure as a share of GRP rang- ing from 0.3 to 13.6 percent (�gure 3.16). Figure 3.16. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by GRP per capita and public spending on primary and secondary education (RUR, 2009) 120,000 Expenditure per student (RUR) 100,000 80,000 Russia 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Gross regional product per capita (RUR) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, and Treasury of the Russian Federation. Note: Chukotka AO, Moscow, Sakhalin, and Tyumen oblast are excluded from the sample as outliers. 28 A World Bank Study Regional variations are exacerbated by the fact that higher-income regions tend to spend more on education from both public and private resources (table 3.1). In particu- lar, regional disparities in funding have led to huge disparities in distribution of material resources for educational institutions across the Russian territorial constituents. Russia has yet to develop a satisfactory and equitable system of �scal federalism and service provision, which is particularly urgent for all social services, including educa- tion. Increasing federal subsidies to poorer regions and intervening at all levels of power will be instrumental in ironing out regional disparities and ensuring that all schools have enough resources to provide students with basic skills and knowledge. Table 3.1. Public spending on general education per one student in the regions of the Russian Federation (RUR, current prices) (2002–10) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Min 4,989 6,474 7,345 8,390 12,077 17,497 18,077 26,021 32,974 Max 76,547 103,477 145,642 177,286 220,282 248,954 297,477 334,680 398,154 Average 11,320 13,383 18,012 22,966 32,919 43,481 54,867 59,125 61,968 Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, and Treasury of the Russian Federation. Staff expenditure represents the largest cost item. The nominal value of teacher sala- ries has been on the upward trend since 2000. However, in real terms teacher salaries have been eroding under inflationary pressures (�gure 3.17). Despite some increases, as of now, teacher salaries are only 78 percent of the estimated average salary in the Russian economy (2009). The value varies across Russian regions (�gure 3.18): from 51.9 Figure 3.17. Monthly schoolteacher remuneration in the Russian Federation in current and �xed prices (RUR, left axis) and ratio of teacher salary to average salary in the economy (right axis) (2000–10) 20,000 0.80 Ratio of teacher salary to average salary 0.68 0.70 0.66 Monthly remuneration (RUR) 0.62 0.61 0.64 0.62 0.64 0.60 15,000 0.54 0.60 0.50 10,000 0.40 5,000 0.20 0 0.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Teacher salary (current prices) Teacher salary (�xed prices, 2000) Teacher salary to average salary in the economy Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Ka RUR, current prices ra ch ae vo -C irc R ass ep ia ub n l R 0 15,000 30,000 45,000 R Br ic D ep ep ya a ub ub ns ge lic lic k sta r current prices) K M eg n Ku urs ord ion r k ov Pegan obl ia R nz re ast ya a g z r io Sm K an egi n R o iro re on ep le v gi ub ns re on lic k r gio O Alt Ka egion re ay lm n nb te yk T U am urg rrit ia ly b r o Ka R ano ov egi ry ba ep v re o rd K u sk g n i n C os blic re ion o - h e tro A gi B a c h m dy on l k e n a r ge As a r i a R eg a t n e io U rak Repub n Russian average in 2010 R dm h p l i ep u an u b c ub M Re rt R reg l i c lic ar p e io N y ub pu n E l b or th Ol's r ic A lic O ry ep lta ss o u i C Li etia l re blic h u pe - gi v a ts Ala on s k n St Iva h R re ija R av no e p gio ep ro v u n C ub pol o o b l i c he lic T bl ly K e r as Vo ab ha rito t ro ins kas ry ne k s o ia R Ya T zh r bla ep r ve e s ub osl r r gio t lic av eg n Tr B Tu l re ion R ans ash l a o gio ep b k b n ub aik ort l a s lic al os t I ia ta P ng n n Vo sk us kra lo ov he i R gd ob tia o 2010 Sa sto a o las N ra v r bla t iz hn O tov egi st iy m re on N s g ov P k re ion g e g R I oro rm ion ep rk d k u r r Voubli tsk eg ai lg c T re ion Be og ata gio 2007 lg ra rs n Vl oro d re tan a d g Kr K dim re ion as al ir gio Je no ug reg n w a is P Sa dar re ion h ri m t g au m a er ion to ors ra rito R no ki re ry Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. e m T g N pub ou err ion ov li s ito os c B re ry ib u gi R Re irsk rya on ep p r tiy ub ub eg a Kr l lic io as A ic K Ty n no m ar va u e Ar yar r re liya kh To sk g Ka an ms region lin ge k r io in lsk eg n R gr r io N ep ad egi n o o Ke vg ubli reg n o c io S m ro n Kh ve ero d r Kom ab rdl vo eg i ar ov re ion R o s ep Len vs k o gio ub M ing k t bl n lic o ra err ast Sa sco d r ito kh w eg ry S a Re ion M t. P (Ya gio M a te ag e ku n ur d rs tia m a b ) Ty an n o urg C s b hu Sa um k o las Ya kh en bla t m N kch al re st al en i in gi -N e au K en ts to am K reg on et au no ch HM ion s to m a A au no o tk O to m us a k no ou d ra m s istr i ou di ic Figure 3.18. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by average wage in the regional systems of school education (RUR, s str t d ic M istr t os ic co t w 29 The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 30 A World Bank Study percent (Yamalo-Nenets AO) to 95.6 percent (Moscow Oblast). Internationally, the ratio of teacher salary to the GDP per capita in Russia is only 0.64 (Agranovich 2005) whereas the OECD average ratio equals 1.23. The data also suggest that teacher salaries are signi�- cantly lower than average salaries of other public employees. As of now, there is a lack of recognition of excellence or incentives for performance or training. If this pa ern contin- ues, it is likely to jeopardize both the quality and the access to education going forward. Salary structures are flat and differentiated only by length of experience, status, and workload. Recent research (Soldatova and Kuvshinova 2006) demonstrates salary dis- parities by status and experience. There is a need to introduce a more flexible mecha- nism of teacher remuneration that could be tied to teacher performance and depend on concrete outcomes of teacher activities in the classroom. The problem of low teacher salaries and lack of incentives require a long-term solution such as the development of regulatory frameworks and national system of remuneration which will be contingent on the overall funding available for education. Some regions have recently started to move in this direction. Recent and Ongoing Reforms Uni�ed State Examination The Uni�ed State Examination (USE) for school graduation and for university entrance was introduced in 2001 on an experimental basis, and has been rapidly spreading across Russia from an initial 5 regions in 2001 to all 83 regions of Russia in 2009. The Education Reform Project helped bring the best international experience into design of the USE at its initial stage. The USE replaced the existing examination system in May, 2009 when all 83 regions of Russia implemented it on obligatory basis. The USE is designed to protect common standards, decrease corruption and informal payments, and increase access for students from rural areas, low-income families, and the disabled. Enrollments in higher education institutions (HEIs) of the rural population of the relevant age cohort that par- ticipated in the USE are growing from year to year. Still the need remains to improve organizational and test content and this could be done incrementally. Comprehensive Regional Education Modernization Projects Comprehensive Projects of Education Modernization (CPEM) include performance- based salaries, per capita �nancing, public accountability, network optimization. The program is one of the most important areas of the National Project “Education.� Imple- mentation of the CPEM began in 2007, when the federal center started supporting on a competitive basis efforts of the Russian regions to modernize their educational systems. These regions have developed the complex projects of education modernization with implementation period within three years, and have taken up certain obligations: ■ change the system of labor remuneration, including increasing teacher salaries ■ increase the efficiency of budget expenditures by introduction of per capita �- nancing of educational institutions ■ create the learning environment corresponding to the modern requirements for secondary education quality improvement, developing a network of edu- cational institutions ■ develop and introduce an independent system for monitoring and assessing education quality The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 31 ■ develop public-private system of education management ■ develop organizational capacity to realize the project. Twenty-one regions of Russia received support from the state in 2007–09 within the framework of CPEM. Ten more regions joined the program in 2008, and 10 more regions were selected in 2009. New Educational Standards In 2007, work under new generation education standards for primary and secondary school began. The main idea of the new standards was to introduce competence-based standards and establish general requirements to learning outputs and conditions. These included the structure of educational programs, number of hours for studying subjects (to avoid overloading the children), and requirements to key competences, which they should seize. In 2009 new educational standards for primary education were developed by joint work of educational specialists from the Russian Science Academy, Russian Academy of Education, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow State University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow and Saint-Petersburg pedagogic HEIs, and other organi- zations. The new standards de�ne requirements to educational process, conditions, and outcomes. During 2010 and �rst half of 2011 all school teachers were to pass courses of professional skills improvement. As of September 1, 2011, teachers have started to in- struct all �rst-grade children under the new standards. According to the legislation federal state educational standards are to provide (i) unity of Russian educational environment, and (ii) continuity of basic educational pro- grams of primary and secondary, vocational and higher education. Under federal law N 309 of December 1, 2007, the new structure of state educational standards was as- serted. New educational standards include three types of requirement including those to (i) the structure of basic educational programs, (ii) conditions of implementation of basic educational programs including cadre, �nance, material and technical requirement, (iii) results of educational process. According to the new standards, parents have an oppor- tunity to directly influence the educational process and can be more actively involved in school management, mainly through the creation of school councils. Parents will enter these school councils and create optional courses for their children. This will constitute about 20 percent of all education curricula for primary school. Secondary school pupils together with parents will choose a pro�le of education and will de�ne optional and ad- ditional courses that are necessary for them. National Educational Initiative “Our New School� The initiative “Our New School� provides support for gifted children, moral and �nan- cial support of teachers, and improvement of school infrastructure. It includes plans to implement the following measures: ■ transfer to new educational standards ■ development of system for support of gifted children ■ development of systems of moral and �nancial support of teachers ■ teacher training and quali�cation improvement ■ improvement of school infrastructure ■ development of system for children health improvement 32 A World Bank Study ■ increased school autonomy. Development of system for support of gifted children. Russia is going to build an extensive system for identi�cation and support of gifted children. A creative environ- ment to identify gifted children in each secondary school will be developed. Upper-sec- ondary school students will be given an opportunity to study in part-time and distance- learning schools that will allow them to receive specialized education regardless of their residence. To support gifted children various �eld activities will be organized, including summer and winter schools, conferences, seminars, and so forth. Systems of moral and �nancial support for teachers are to be created in Russia. The system of moral support is to include already established competitions for teach- ers (“Teacher of the Year,� “I give my heart for children,� and so forth). These effective mechanisms for support of best teachers were developed in the framework of the prior- ity national project “Education� and will be further spread at regional level. The system of �nancial support will include not only a further increase of school salary funds, but also create a labor remuneration mechanism that would stimulate best teachers regardless of their professional experience in order to a ract young teachers to school. Introduction of new performance-based systems of labor remuneration is to be completed in all regions of Russia in 2010–13. Teacher training and quali�cation improvement are also in the focus of the reform. Certi�cation of teachers and administrative personnel is planned to be implemented through periodic validation of teacher quali�cations in conformity with the challenges faced by the school. Teacher education will be upgraded and teacher training colleges will be gradually transformed into major basic training centers for teachers or faculty in classical universities. Quali�cation improvement programs for teachers and school administrators will be flexibly changed depending on teacher interests, and thus, depending on the educa- tional needs of children. Financing of training will be provided to school communities on the principle of per capita funding. This way, teachers will be able to choose educa- tional program and institutions (not only training institutions, but also, for example, pedagogic, classical universities) by themselves. Improvement of school infrastructure. In order to establish a universal barrier-free environment to ensure full integration of disabled children in each educational institu- tion, there are plans to update standards for design and construction of school buildings and facilities, sanitary rules and catering norms, requirements for organization of health care to students, and to ensure school safety. In rural schools effective mechanisms for transportation of students, including requirements for school buses, are to be worked out in the 2010–13 period. Granting of Autonomous Status to Public Schools Very strong schools can become autonomous educational institutions. Among schools that have already transferred into autonomous status, lyceums and gymnasiums are prevalent. These are school leaders that have additional educational programs and ac- tively cooperate with parents. They have strong governing boards and have introduced their own systems of salaries that stimulate program distribution. They are not always city schools: in some regions even rural schools have passed to autonomous status. But The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 33 they are united by the fact that they are strong institutions with their own development programs and funds that they would like to keep. As always, there are problems in some regions where regional authorities are trans- ferring all schools into autonomous status (see �gure 3.19). For them this is a process of budget cost optimization, not of network development. In such cases weak schools are at times hurt because they are not ready to work independently. Figure 3.19. Comparison of regions in the Russian Federation by number of educational institutions transferred to autonomous status (2010) 350 324 Number of institutions 300 250 228 200 150 100 44 50 29 24 21 19 17 13 11 9 9 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 0 Ba No um n sh vg en Ka rto od in n N P rad os rm Kh Ko k as ba i v hu sk Pe sh Iv za or ov dm ia Sa B Ki a kh ur rov Ya tia ya a Li nsk As Irku k tra tsk M n To O lg sk Le l a d i v O ad Am k ng r ur Kr a m ni m i irs no ro ts V oro s Ty sta lin sta ti Br kuti KH kha U dov A C yar Be m m va n M an ur a- ya ko or r ov e pe g ib t ar Ta Source: Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation. Key Problems and Challenges Access and Equity Regional inequalities in educational funding pose a threat to access, as decentralization in Russia has led to rising inequality in the availability of funds among local education authorities. Rural regions are especially likely to suffer as a result, as they are often poorer and have li le access to high-quality education. The situation with inequalities in provision of resources to schools is alarming. Gov- ernment policy of supporting best-performing schools has led to widening of the gap be- tween poor-performing and well-performing schools. The gap concerns inputs (�nancial and cadre resources provided to schools), as well as outcomes (test results). Policy mak- ers try to a ribute low results of poor-performing schools to the disadvantaged back- grounds of students studying in such schools (including problem children, migrants, children of large families, and so forth). Those schools are not being supported by the government and �nd themselves isolated from the real world. According to results of the recent study (Frouminet al. 2011) students in such schools don’t/rarely participate in interschool contests, conduct research activities, and as a result show low test scores. Quality International comparison. Russian participation in international studies (such as the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment—PISA) provides a certain un- derstanding of the level of quality of education in Russia in comparison with other coun- tries. The data of the PISA study show that the results of 15-year-old Russian students 34 A World Bank Study are signi�cantly lower than both the students’ results in leading countries and average results by students of the 30 OECD countries (Agranovich and Korolyova 2006). International education studies like PISA show the real performance of education system comparing to other countries. Russia participated in PISA in 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009. The PISA results were an unpleasant surprise for Russia as it systematically placed poorly: 37–40 places (out of 65 countries) in science performance, 41–43 in read- ing, and 38–40 in mathematical performance. Looking at the absolute score of Russian students, it can be said that the overall level of Russian performance in PISA wasn’t stable (�gure 3.20). Nevertheless, between 2000 and 2009 performance of Russian stu- dents worsened both in reading and math. Figure 3.20. PISA scores of students in the Russian Federation (2000, 2003, 2006, 2009) 500 490 480 470 PISA scores 460 450 440 430 420 410 2000 2003 2006 2009 Mathematical literacy 478 468 476 468 Reading literacy 462 442 440 459 Scientific literacy 460 489 479 478 Source: Authors’ calculations based on the data of “PISA-2009 Key Findings.� Nevertheless, Russia has showed signi�cant progress between PIRLS 2000 and 2006 testing. In 2000 Russia placed 12th out of 37 countries; in 2006 Russian primary school students showed the best results among 40 countries that participated. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) provided reli- able and timely data on the mathematics and science achievement of Russian students. In 2007 Russia showed 10th place out of 59 countries. In mathematics Russian fourth- grade students placed 6th among 36 countries (for example, after Hong Kong SAR, Chi- na; Singapore; Taiwan, China; and Japan). Russian eight-grade students placed 8th out of 49 (for example, after the four countries listed above and the Republic of Korea). In natural science Russian primary school students placed 5th out of 36 (for example, after Singapore and Taiwan, China); secondary school students placed 10th out of 49 coun- tries (for example, after Singapore; Taiwan, China; Japan; Korea; the United Kingdom; and the Czech Republic). Results for the given investigation (of PISA) acquired in the years 2000–09 demon- strated that for all key indicators of functional competence Russian students graduat- The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 35 ing from basic school essentially fell behind from their counterparts in most developed countries. Ability to reproduce knowledge and apply known algorithms dominate in the pro�le of achievements of Russian students in comparison with the high-level intellec- tual skills (generalization, analysis, forecasting, generation of hypothesis, and so forth). Russian students tend to develop theoretical knowledge rather than practical skills. The standards of teacher training are very rigid and do not contain enough classroom practice when compared with many other countries. It is a common practice for the teachers to ascribe student failures to low student abilities and not to outdated teaching and learning practices. The overall low quality of Russian education can also be observed from the results of the USE. The data demonstrate that in 2008 only about 7.2 percent of students scored highest in the math test while 23.1 percent out of all students received an unsatisfactory grade (failed the test), which is quite alarming. However, the share of students failing the test in math decreased �rst to 6.8 percent in 2009 and then to 5.2 percent in 2010.3 Nevertheless, the results suggest that the quality of education is largely moderate with over one third of students receiving a good grade on the tests in all subjects except for- eign languages. Inefficient use of ICT. There have been signi�cant advances in the spread of infor- mation and communication technology (ICT) in Russian education. The number of stu- dents per one modern computer improved from about 500 in 2000 to 20 in 2008. During 2009/10 school year this number decreased to 16 students per one computer. In 2007, under the framework of a federal program, all schools were to be provided with a con- nection to the Internet. However, according to data of Russian Federal Statistics Service only 1 out of 2 computers in schools had a connection to the Internet in 2009/10 school year. Signi�cant resources were spent on the production of digital educational resources and teacher training. However, there is li le evidence of changes in educational prac- tices enhanced by ICT.4 Teachers tend to use ICT to support traditional teaching rather than to move to a constructivist and student-centered model. The World Bank–�nanced e-Learning Support Project has already helped seven Russian regions introduce ICT into education to change traditional teaching and learning pa erns. Recently, many other regions have also included such activity in their educational policy and now implement- ing ICT in education projects on a regional level. Russian schools have established reasonable ICT infrastructure. Still, Russia falls behind EU averages for such indicators—there are 9 students per one computer, includ- ing 10 students per one PC connected to the Internet. Moreover, according to the Min- istry of Education of Russia the ICT potential is not being sufficiently used in regional education systems. Efficient ICT use is limited as the technologies are used exclusively during computer science classes and rarely utilized for other subjects, or beyond classes for individual projects, research, and informal learning.5 The capacity of ICT to support independent or collaborative learning, development of creativity and research abilities, and interactive activities is insufficiently used. Financing and Provision of Resources Despite some increases in human development spending, public expenditure on educa- tion has been low in global comparison. As compared to the OECD countries where the average public spending on education equals to 5.4 percent of GDP (4 percent in Russia), education in Russia has a markedly lower �nancial priority. 36 A World Bank Study Considering human resources, the Russian education system remains labor-inten- sive compared to other countries. This fact is expressed in the low student-teacher ratio and small average school size. Persistent problems associated with underfunding of the education system (obsolete hard and soft infrastructure, inadequate resources, undertrained and underpaid teach- ers, and so forth) are compounded by inadequate and inefficient use of resources. This in turn means that Russia is not always able to direct funding to programs that require special a ention and support according to national educational, social, and economic development priorities. The present system of allocations, regulations, and incentives leave li le for capital investments and development (as li le as 5–6 percent of regional educational budgets goes to capital expenditures and investments). A signi�cant num- ber of schools are in need of capital repair and reconstruction (22.6 percent of schools in 2009/10 school year). Policy Options Current ways of modernizing the education system are developed well enough, but the implementation of all plans could be very difficult because of misunderstandings and imitations of reforms on the regional and municipal levels. For example: ■ New generation standards implementation. There should be a strategic vision of the teacher retraining process. Otherwise, teachers would not change the learning process to �t with the new standards. ■ Per capita �nancing. In the majority of Russian regions per capita coefficients were created as a way to make payments equal to previous budget system. This is just an imitation of per capita �nancing and will not bring any results. ■ New system of teachers’ salaries. Because of �nancial and economic crisis, many regional education budgets were cut down. A a result, performance bonus on teachers’ salaries became very small. This needs to be changed; otherwise, cur- rent salaries will not make teachers interested in self-development and learning innovations implementation. ■ Regional disparities. State policy on the ma er of �nancial support is oriented toward best-performing municipalities, schools, students.6 In order to smooth regional disparities it is crucial to provide support not only to the best, but also to those lagging behind. ■ ICT in education. More regions in Russia should implement ICT in education programs. Students and teachers should learn how to effectively use modern ICT in solving educational, professional, and everyday problems. They should learn how to search for the information they need; organize, process, analyze, and evaluate it; and create and distribute information in accordance with their needs. All the above-listed skills should enable students and teachers to: • effectively participate in lifelong learning (including distance education via Internet) • prepare themselves to future professional activities • live and work in an informational society and knowledge economy. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 37 ■ Emphasize teaching methodology and turn it into a new form of sharing good practices through formal or informal communities of practice, to speed up the needed change in effectively using ICT in teaching and learning. ■ Target help for different groups of children. A ention paid to children with disabilities should be the same as to a ention to gifted kids. The challenge of in- cluding such children (with disabilities) in normal school life should be solved (Simakova 2009). ■ Special a ention should be given to schools showing low educational results and students studying there. It was found (Froumin et al. 2011] that often such schools have to deal with children from large families, migrants’ children, or problem children. Thus, there is a need to develop special measures and pro- vide those schools and children equal opportunities. ■ The Russian government has tried to implement some projects to involve young professionals in schools. But all these incentives seem to be unrelated to each other and implemented without a strategic view. These incentives show no re- sults. The problem of teacher competitiveness remains to be solved. Notes 1. The coverage ratio can be over 100 percent due to the inclusion of overaged and underaged pu- pils/students because of early or late entrants, and grade repetition. 2. According to data of UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 3. Uni�ed State Examination scores are made on the basis 100-point scale, and were converted to a 5-point scale used in Russia. Thus, it was possible to calculate the share of excellent students and share of poor students. However, in 2009 Ministry of Education and Science of Russia decided not to convert scores to the 5-point scale. 4. According to data from monitoring report of Federal Agency of Education. 5. Ibid. 6. For example, Decree of President of the Russian Federation from 28.06.2007 № 825 “On the Evaluation of the Efficiency of Executive Bodies of Regions of the Russian Federation.� References Abdrahmanova, G., Gohberg, L., Zabaturina, I., Kovaleva, G., Kovaleva, N., Kuznetsova, V., Ozerova, O., Shuvalova, O. 2010. Education in the Russian Federation: 2010. Annu- al statistical publication. Moscow: State University, Higher School of Economics. Agranovich, M. 2005. “Russian Education in the Context of International Indicators.� Analytical report, Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Moscow. Agranovich, M., Korolyova, N., et al. 2006. Federal Service for State Statistics of the Rus- sian Federation. “Youth Development Report: Condition of Russian Youth.� Re- trieved July 21, 2006. h p://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31337&URL_ DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Artem, K. 2009. “Children Under Reform�. Russian journal “Expert-Ural,� No. 34 (388). h p://www.expert-ural.com/25-0-7954/ Federal Agency of Education. 2009. Statistical Monitoring Report of Federal Agency of Education. h p://www.ed.gov.ru/. Federal Service for State Statistics of Russia. 2010. Statistical Yearbook of the Russian Federa- tion—2010. Moscow. 38 A World Bank Study ———. 2009. “Main Direction for Improvement in the Uni�ed State Examination Tests in 2008–2009�. Moscow. h p://www.�pi.ru/binaries/342/napravleniya%20sov.doc. Froumin, I., Pinskaya, M., Kosaretsky, S., Plahotnuk, T. 2011. “Schools in Difficult Social Environments: ‘Drowning’ and ‘Struggling’.� Presentation handouts. Institute for Educational Research, National Research University—Higher School of Econom- ics. Moscow. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2010. Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators. h p://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010 ———. 2010. PISA-2009 Key Findings. Paris: OECD. Simakova, S. 2009 “Invisible Children.� Children’s Rights Commissionerfor the Presi- dent of the Russian Federation. h p://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esr c=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=h p%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfdeti. ru%2F�les%2F1270213267_novisible_child.doc&ei=OJPDTojXHYPv0gHLqNX- oDg&usg=AFQjCNFGsZ8B4sZ0fIyjtnynAwNCHNZS2g&sig2=08o3KKRv Bd8-F25MGOSlLA Soldatova, V., Kuvshinova, A. 2006. “Assessment of Actual and Potential Consequences of Reforms Implemented within Project of Education System Reform for Teach- ers.� Federal Service for State Statistics of Russia, Moscow. World Bank. 2010. “Social Expenditure Review.� World Bank, Washington, DC. CHAPTER 4 Vocational Education and Training Current Situation and Trends Coverage Vocational education and training (VET) plays an important role in providing the skills, knowledge, and competences needed in the labor market. In 2000–10 the number of students studying in educational institutions providing initial vocational education and training (IVET) decreased by 41.4 percent, lowering the coverage ratio to 21.5 percent (down from 22.3 percent in 2000). However, due to negative demographic tendencies coverage ratio to IVET has been increasing beginning from 2008 (�gure 4.1). The number of students studying in secondary vocational education and training (SVET) institutions dropped less signi�cantly during that period—only by 10 percent. The situation with coverage ratios parallels the demographic trends in Russia (�gure 4.2). These demographic changes will have a further impact on the vocational education and training system in Russia. Institutional Structure and Scale Facing the problem of the decline in the corresponding age population, state authorities intended to restructure the present network of state VET institutions. The number of IVET institutions has changed dramatically decreasing by almost 40 percent in 2000–10 Figure 4.1. Gross coverage of initial and secondary vocational education and training in the Russian Federation (percent, 2000–10) 40 38.0 33.5 33.7 34.0 34.1 34.1 34.0 33.4 33.6 33.5 34.9 30 Percent 20 22.3 21.8 21.7 21.6 21.3 21.0 21.1 20.9 21.5 20.5 20.0 10 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year IVET SVET Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. Note: Figure shows ratio of students studying in IVET institution to age cohort 15–17 years and ratio of students studying in SVET institution to age cohort 17–19 years. 39 40 A World Bank Study Figure 4.2. Number of students in initial and secondary vocational educational institutions and number of people at age 15–17 and 17–19 in the Russian Federation (thousand persons, 2000–10) IVET SVET 10,000 10,000 Thousand persons Thousand persons 8,000 8,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 0 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Year Year IVET students 15–17 SVET students 17–19 Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. (�gure 4.3). In 2010 by law the merging process of initial and secondary vocational insti- tution networks started, and in 2010 the IVET system was abolished. Cadres The number of teaching staff in SVET institutions has increased in line with the growth of the network of SVET institutions (their number increased by 15 percent in 2000–10). Teaching staff in IVET institutions were to be terminated as a consequence of the clo- sure of educational institutions (�gures 4.4 and 4.5). Currently the staff not classi�ed Figure 4.3. Number of state initial and secondary vocational educational institutions in the Russian Federation (units, 2000–10) 5,000 3,893 3,872 3,843 3,798 4,000 3,686 3,392 Number of institutions 3,209 3,180 2,855 3,000 2,658 2,586 2,595 2,626 2,627 2,637 2,688 2,631 2,000 2,589 2,566 2,535 2,564 2,356 1,000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year IVET SVET Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 41 Figure 4.4. Structure of staff in IVET institutions by position in the Russian Federation (percent) 2000/01 2008/09 4.3% 10.8% 11.1% 13.9% Other staff Teaching staff Administrative staff 84.9% 75.0% Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. Figure 4.5. Number of teaching staff in public SVET institutions in the Russian Federation (thousand persons, 2000–10) 160 149.8 150 140.4 Staff (thousands) 140 137.1 136.4 137.2 134.2 135.6 135.4 129.5 130.7 130 120 110 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. as instructional personnel (staff other than teaching staff, teachers’ aides and research assistants) represent on average slightly less than a quarter of the total teaching and nonteaching staff in initial vocational institutions. Despite institutional changes in the VET system, the student-teacher ratio in both sectors has not changed signi�cantly. Internationally, Russia is close to the European estimates of student-teaching staff ratio in vocational education: in postsecondary non- tertiary education (equivalent to Russian IVET) OECD average is 13.8 and the EU19 av- erage 13.2; in tertiary education type-B (equivalent to Russian SVET) the OECD average is 19.7 and the EU19 average 12.8 (2008 data) (OECD 2010) (�gure 4.6). 42 A World Bank Study Figure 4.6. Dynamics of student-teacher ratio (students to teaching staff) in initial and secondary vocational institutions in the Russian Federation (2000-10) 18.4 18.5 18.4 18.3 20 17.8 17.6 17.5 16.7 15.8 16 13.7 Student-teacher ratio 12 12.6 12.8 12.5 12.6 12.4 12.6 12.7 12.0 11.3 8 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /1 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Year IVET SVET Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. Note: Information regarding the number of personnel in IVET in 2010 is not available. Financing The volume of government spending on vocational education has signi�cantly increased over the past seven years, growing three-fold from RUR 54.5 billion (US$1.8 billion) in 2003 to RUR 169 billion (US$5.6 billion) in 2009 (�gure 4.7). This translates into an aver- Figure 4.7. Total public spending (left axis) and per student expenditure (right axis) in vocational education in the Russian Federation 6,000,000 2,000 1,800 5,000,000 Per student expenditure 1,600 Total public spending 1,400 4,000,000 1,200 3,000,000 1,000 800 2,000,000 600 400 1,000,000 200 0 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Public spending on education, vocational (US$ thousand, current prices) Public spending on education, vocational (US$ thousand, fixed 2003 prices) Expenditure per student, vocational (US$, fixed 2003 prices) Expenditure per student, vocational (US$, current prices) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, Treasury, and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 43 age annual increase of 21.0 percent (14.2 percent for IVET, 27.6 percent for SVET). In 2010 VET �nancing decreased by 3 percent down to 163.7 (US$5.4 billion). In �xed 2003 prices the decrease in �nancing between 2009 and 2010 was even more signi�cant—11.7 percent. This trend is most likely connected with changes occurring in the vocational education system, including the decline in the number of students and closure of voca- tional schools. The proportion of GDP per capita earmarked for vocational education increased from 14.4 percent in 2003 to almost 20 percent in 2009 and dropped to 17.3 percent in 2010 (top line in �gure 4.8). The share of public expenditure on vocational education in total public expenditure on education between 2003 and 2010 has been decreasing (bot- tom line in �gure 4.8). Figure 4.8. Public expenditure on vocational education per student as share of GDP per capita, share of total public expenditure on education, and share of total public expenditure in the Russian Federation (percent) (2003–10) 19.9 20 17.3 16.7 15.5 14.4 14.3 15 13.6 13.8 Percent 12.0 12.4 11.8 11.8 12.7 11.8 11.2 10.9 10 11.5 11.1 10.3 9.9 9.5 9.6 9.5 8.6 5 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Expenditure per student, vocational (% of GDP per capita) Public spending on education, vocational (% of public expenditure on education) Public spending on education, total (% of total public expenditures) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, and Treasury of the Russian Federation. Regional Differentiation Data on educational expenditures on vocational programs show wide variations be- tween Russian regions in their levels of total public expenditure on initial and secondary VET programs as a percentage of GRP. Spending ranges from 0.03 percent to 1.27 per- cent for IVET and from 0.02 percent to 0.68 percent for SVET1 (�gure 4.9). 44 A World Bank Study Figure 4.9. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by GRP per capita and public spending on VET (RUR, 2009) IVET SVET Expenditure per student (RUR) Expenditure per student (RUR) 150,000 60,000 120,000 50,000 40,000 90,000 30,000 60,000 20,000 30,000 10,000 0 0 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Gross regional product per capita (RUR) Gross regional product per capita (RUR) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, Treasury, and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Recent and Ongoing Reforms Decentralization of Governance and Finance Intensive regionalization of vocational schools and colleges began in 2005 in order to adjust the structure of education and training in educational institutions to the needs of regional economies (�gure 4.10). Nevertheless, there is still a large number of institu- tions under federal subordination (1,039 out of 2,535 public SVET institutions2). Not all regions can carry the burden of providing �nancial support to newly transferred voca- tional institutions as the federal government does not in all cases provide subventions to those regions. However, according to a federal government initiative all institutions are to be transferred in 2012. Figure 4.10. Enrollment in state VET in 2010 by sources Introduction of Quali�cation Framework of �nancing in the Russian The National Quali�cation Framework was Federation (thousands persons) created as a result of teamwork of the Fed- Municipal budgets eral Institute for Education Development and 2 National Agency for Quali�cations Develop- ment. It is a very important document, but it has a recommendatory character. The Minis- try of Education and Science of the Russian Regional Fee-based budgets 182.1 Federation did not con�rm the standards of 196.5 vocational and higher education connected with learning outcomes. The Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs coordi- nates the work on the creation of professional Federal budget 291.2 standards by employers and faces difficulties in conveying the importance of this work to employers. The work on creation of the regional cen- Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of ters of professional certi�cation has not start- the Russian Federation. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 45 ed. The idea is to create an external independent quality assurance of vocational and higher education. This is possible only on the basis of graduates’ certi�cation results with the participation of regional employers. One more problem is that current docu- ments do not consider the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). Creation of educational standards precedes creation of professional standards. All this means that results should be corrected, but there are no regulatory procedures for stan- dards correction. Introduction of Applied Bachelor Programs For this project the European idea (as in Finland and Germany) was used of creating applied bachelor programs for vocational education institutions such as colleges and technical schools. The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation an- nounced in the middle of 2009 a competition for development and implementation of such programs. But according to the Russian legislative base, only higher education institutions may implement such programs. Colleges have no rights to provide bachelor-level programs, so this incentive may cause a fast outflow of students from independent colleges to col- leges under university control or to universities themselves. Government Programs to Support Development of Regional VET Systems The government intends to improve the professional and vocational education system through support of regional programs for VET system development on a competitive basis. As said above the process of transferring federal vocational institutions to regional subordination is almost completed in many regions of Russia. Currently the government is supporting regional programs of VET system development that best adjust education systems to the needs of regional economies. The support includes co-�nancing from the Federal Ministry of Education and Science and provision of assistance in dissemination of regional experience on a national level. Key Problems and Challenges Access and Quality The Russian system of vocational education is plagued by two major problems: (i) the large number of relatively small vocational schools and (ii) narrow specialist offer- ings. The Soviet system trained students in narrowly specialized programs for jobs in a planned economy. The economy has changed dramatically, but the training system has not kept pace. At present, the system of vocational education is not relevant to the labor market’s needs and thus supplies a labor force that does not measure up to business- sector demand. Top managers of enterprises often complain that they have to provide in-plant retraining to every newly employed young specialist. The fact that the regional labor market has become inundated with graduates in economic and legal disciplines and their supply by far exceeds the demand from employers is substantial evidence of the labor market distortions. This, in its turn, has led to an undersupply of those gradu- ates who skills are really necessary in the labor market: 5.5 percent of graduates from vo- cational institutions in Russia registered in placement services as unemployed in 2010.3 In reality the situation could be more tragic as very small share of young people apply to placement services in case they do not get a job after their graduation.4 46 A World Bank Study There appears to be a serious gap/mismatch between the skills demanded by em- ployers and the skills provided by the education and training system. The reason for the existing gap/mismatch appears to lie on the quality side of education and training, that is, inadequate quality of education of graduates from educational institutions. This is further exempli�ed by the fact that labor market expansion capacity appears to have been exhausted and this combined with the changes to the demographics (the aging population) is indicating a serious and tightening bo leneck for the growth. The key to prosperity in a modern economy with intense local and global competi- tion experiencing rapid technological change is a properly educated and skilled work- force producing high value-added, knowledge-intensive goods and services. Regional TVET systems are in urgent need of reform. Such need comes from a range of problems faced by education systems and institutions. First is continuous under�- nancing of VET institutions over a period of almost two previous decades (Spiridonova 2011). This caused signi�cant developmental retardation of VET systems in comparison to modern requirements of regional labor markets, obsolescence of general funds, and decreasing a ractiveness of VET among young people. Second is the continuous mis- match between the number of students studying in educational institutions, their spe- cializations, and real needs of the regional economy. This mismatch has caused regions to suffer signi�cant economic losses and social expenses (Kochetkov 2011). Currently many regions are trying to adjust the VET system to the labor market needs. However, they lack a vision for a strategic program and the developmental capacity to do it. There is a continuing need to develop a strategy for in-depth reform of the entire vo- cational education and training system, including how its various components interact with one other and how they link to general and higher education. Policy Options The system of vocational education is not relevant to the labor market needs and thus trains a labor force that does not meet the demands of the business sector. The contra- dictions of the present VET system could cause it to lose its position in the market of educational services and be replaced with corporate retraining centers. At the same time, demand for VET-trained workers capable of working in modern industry using new complicated technical equipment is increasing in the regional economies. The vocational education system has to be capable of providing two types of ser- vices to support competitiveness of a country or region. First, it should be able to equip students with key general and technical skills and knowledge. Second, it should provide opportunities for constant renewing, updating, and adjustment of the skills. Government policy measures should taken both on federal and regional levels: ■ On the federal level the Russian government should continue to support (mostly �nancially) effective reforms being implemented in the regions—reform “from the bo om.� ■ On the regional level the following should be done: • Conduct monitoring and evaluation activities for de�ning most crucial prob- lems of VET systems. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 47 • Optimize the network of vocational education institutions for modern econ- omy. For example, adjust the VET network as well as training and education provided in VET institutions to the needs of local economies. • Modernize organizational and economical managing mechanisms in re- gional VET systems on the basis of budgeting focused on result principles— “�nancing for results.� • Create organizational and economical mechanisms for permanent updating of the curricula and educational technologies. • Implement a public-private partnership strategy of quality management in vocational education on the basis of activity results monitoring and using an external quality assurance system. Notes 1. Estimation based on data of Treasury of the Russian Federation. 2. According to data of Federal Service of State Statistics. 3. According to data of Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. 4. According to data of Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation. References Federal Service for State Statistics of Russia. 2010. Statistical Yearbook of the Russian Federa- tion—2010. Moscow. Kochetkov, A. 2011. “Professional Education and Labor Market: Problems of Interac- tion.� Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences. h p://www.isras.ru/ �les/File/Socis/2011-5/Kochetov.pdf, pp. 82–90. Spiridonova, G. 2011. “Problems of Adaptation of VET Graduates to the Labor Market.� State Budgetary Institution of Further Professional Education of the Republic of Adygea. h p://www.aripk.ru/pedsovet2008/section/konsult/newdocs/nach_i_sr_ pr_obr/adapt.doc. CHAPTER 5 Higher Education Current Situation and Trends Coverage The number of students pursuing higher education in Russia has signi�cantly increased over the past 18 years, growing 2.5 times from 2.8 million in 1990 to 7.1 million in 2010 (�g- ure 5.1). This translates into an average annual increase of about 5 percent. Gross coverage by higher education doubled over this period. However, a closer look at the data reveals that the expansion has been signi�cantly due to the growth of the number of students studying in private institutions—a unique feature of the post-Soviet era (�gure 5.2). An interesting feature of the Russian higher education system is that starting from 2000 the number of entrants to educational institutions has exceeded the number of school leavers (�gure 5.3). This reflects that not only graduates from schools are apply- ing to higher education institution but also leavers from vocational schools in order to increase their educational level. Looking at the number of entrants to higher education institutions it should be noted that beginning from the same year (2000) the number of students applying to fee- Figure 5.1. Gross coverage by and enrollment in higher education in the Russian Federation (2000–10, percent) 90 84 84 79 76 80 69 66 64 64 70 57 59 60 53 46 Percent 50 37 40 50 53 54 55 33 40 28 28 29 32 44 46 46 48 25 26 39 41 30 35 30 20 27 24 23 22 21 21 22 23 25 10 0 19 /91 19 /92 19 /93 19 /94 19 /95 19 /96 19 /97 19 /98 19 /99 20 /00 20 /01 20 /02 20 /03 20 /04 20 /05 20 /06 20 /07 20 /08 20 /09 20 /10 1 /1 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 19 Coverage Enrollment Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. Note: Figure shows ratio of students studying in higher education institutions to 17-to-22-year-olds; and ratio of entrants to higher education institutions to 17-year-olds. 48 The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 49 Figure 5.2. Distribution of students in higher education institutions by type of ownership and form of education in the Russian Federation (thousand persons, 1990–2010) 8,000 7,000 Students (thousand) 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 19 /91 19 /92 19 /93 19 /94 19 /95 19 /96 19 /97 19 /98 99 /99 20 000 20 /01 20 /02 20 /03 20 /04 20 /05 20 /06 20 /07 20 /08 20 /09 20 /10 1 /1 10 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 19 98 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 /2 19 Year State (sum total) State (face-to-face) Private (sum total) Private (face-to-face) Total (sum total) Total (face-to-face) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Figure 5.3. Number of graduates from upper-secondary schools (state and private) and entrants to higher education institutions (state and private) in the Russian Federation (thousand persons, 1992–2010) 1,800 1,600 Thousands of graduates 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Year Graduates from school Entrants to higher education institutions Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. based services at educational institutions has been exceeding the number of students applying to state-funded places (�gure 5.4). This is quite alarming as fee-based training in universities has been mostly in areas that are popular among students (economics, 50 A World Bank Study Figure 5.4. Distribution of entrants to higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by form of education (thousand persons, 2000–10) 900 800 Thousands of entrants 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year State funded Fee-based Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. management, law) but that already in low demand by employers due to overproduction of such specialists in previous years. Institutional Structure and Scale The network of higher education institutions has experienced signi�cant growth, in- creasing by more than 15 percent in 2000–10. However, a closer look at the data reveals that much of the expansion comes from the growing number of nonstate higher educa- tion institutions. Their number increased by 29 percent (against 8 percent growth in the number of state HEIs) (�gure 5.5). Figure 5.5. Distribution of higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by form of ownership (units, 2000–10) 1,200 1,000 409 413 430 450 474 452 462 800 387 384 392 358 Units 600 400 607 621 655 652 662 655 660 658 660 662 653 200 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year State Nonstate Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 51 Higher education has a hierarchical management system that includes three levels: federal, regional, and municipal. Distribution of higher education institutions by level of subordination is shown in �gure 5.6 and by type in �gure 5.7. Figure 5.6. Distribution of public Figure 5.7. Distribution of public higher education institutions in higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by level of the Russian Federation by type subordination (2008/09, percent) (2008/09, percent) Federal Institutes 90.6% 22% Universities 53% Academies 25% Regional Other 7.1% 0.6% Municipal 1.7% Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Federation. The network of higher education institutions is supplemented by a widely spread network of institution branches in the regions of Russia. In the 2008/09 academic year there were 1,663 branches of higher education institutions including 1,102 branches of public HEIs, and 561 of private. Thus, each higher education institution has on average 1.5 branches (1.7 in the public sector of the higher education system, and 1.2 in the pri- vate sector). Cadres In higher education, staff not classi�ed as instructional personnel represent on average nearly 20 percent of the total teaching and nonteaching staff (40 percent for tertiary edu- cation in OECD), which may indicate of high potential for science instruction of Russian higher education institutions (�gure 5.8). Financing This section presents data on expenditure per student in higher education as well as total government expenditure on higher education as a percentage of GDP—the two key indicators for the �nancing of higher education. Unfortunately, a lack of data limits the information on private funding even though it is also an important factor in �nancing higher education. 52 A World Bank Study Figure 5.8. Distribution of staff in public higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by position (percent, school years 2000/01 and 2008/09) 2000/01 2008/09 Vice- chancellors, Chancellors, heads of 1.8% Chancellors, 1.8% branchs, Vice-chancellors, Senior heads of branchs, 8.0% teachers, 7.8% 1.5% Teachers, Teachers, Heads the teaching teaching Deans, (sub)depart- assistants, Deans, Heads the assistants, 8.2% (sub) ment, 0.2% 16.4% 10.5% Senior 20.6% department, teachers, 0.2% 1.4% Associate Associate professors, professors, Professors, 21.7% Professors, 23.1% 36.7% 40.1% Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. The volume of government spending on higher education has signi�cantly in- creased over the past �ve years, growing almost six-fold from RUR 61.2 billion (US$2.0 billion) in 2003 to RUR 377.8 billion (US$12.3 billion) in 2010. This translates into an aver- age annual increase of 30.7 percent. However, in �xed 2003 prices the increase of higher education �nancing has been much less: the spending increased three times, which can still be considered as a signi�cant change (see �gures 5.9 and 5.10). Figure 5.9. Public spending on higher education institutions in the Russian Federation by type (RUR, 2006–08) 120,000 2006 2007 2008 100,000 Public spending (RUR) 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 State HEIs Technical Humanities, Economics, Universities Architectural pedagogical, law, service and arts linguistic Type of institution Source: Authors’ calculations based on the data of Abankina, 2009. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 53 Figure 5.10. Total public spending (left axis) and per student expenditure (right axis) in higher education in the Russian Federation 14,000,000 2,500 Per student expenditure Total public spending 12,000,000 2,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 1,500 6,000,000 1,000 4,000,000 500 2,000,000 0 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Public spending on education, higher (US$ thousand, current prices) Public spending on education, higher (US$ thousand, fixed 2003 prices) Expenditure per student, higher (US$, fixed 2003 prices) (all students) Expenditure per student, higher (US$, current prices) (all students) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics, the Central Bank, and Treasury of the Russian Federation. Public spending on education is relatively stable as a share of total public spending. Per student investment on state higher education institutions (as a share of GDP per cap- ita) increased from 12.0 percent in 2003 to 20.6 percent in 2010 (�gure 5.11). Moreover, as can be seen from the data, higher education became a higher priority in the area of education �nancing. The share of spending on higher education in total public spending on education increased from 12.9 percent to 19.9 percent during that period. Figure 5.11. Public expenditure on higher education in the Russian Federation per student as share of GDP per capita, as share of total public expenditure on education, and as share of total public expenditure (percent, 2003–10) 25 20.6 20.6 20 17.9 17.7 15.7 16.4 19.5 19.9 Percent 15 12.9 13.0 16.6 16.2 14.0 14.7 12.0 12.7 12.4 10 12.0 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.2 11.1 10.9 5 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year Expenditure per student, higher (% of GDP per capita) Public spending on education, higher (% of public expenditure on education) Public spending on education, total (% of total public expenditures) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of Federal Service for State Statistics, and Treasury of the Russian Federation. 54 A World Bank Study Looking outside Russia, OECD countries as a whole spend US$12,907 annually per tertiary student (OECD 2010). On average, OECD countries spend nearly twice as much per student at the tertiary level as at the primary level. Russia also spends, on average, two times more on educational institutions per student at the tertiary level than at the primary level (�gure 5.12). Figure 5.12. Per student expenditures on higher education in OECD and partner countries (2007, US$, PPP) 30,000 Per student expenditures 25,000 (2007, US$, PPP) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 United Canada United Japan Germany OECD UE19 Italy Russian States Kingdom Federation Source: Authors’ calculations based on OECD 2010. Regional Differentiation State HEIs are mostly �nanced from the federal budget with only 3.5 percent of total funding in 2010 coming from regional budgets. There is great regional variation in staff salaries. The lowest salaries are found in the Southwest regions, ranging from about RUR 9,037 in Karachay-Cherkessia Republic to RUR 12,070 in Kalmyk Republic in 2010 (the Russian average is RUR 21,319) (�gure 5.13). Notably high salaries are found in the Figure 5.13. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by average wage in the regional higher education systems (RUR, 2009) 40,000 Average monthly wage in higher 35,000 education (RUR) 30,000 25,000 20,000 Russia 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 GRP per capita (RUR) Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Fed- eration. Distribution (RUR) 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Republic of Karachaevo-Cherkessk 2005, 2010) Republic of North Osetia-Alania Republic of Kabardino-Balkar Novgorod region Kostroma region Ulyanovsk region Lipetsk region Republic of Mari-El Altai Republic Smolensk region Penza region Altai krai Kursk region Republic of Adygea Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Republic of Buryatia Bryansk region 2002 Yaroslavl region Republic of Karelia Republic of Tatarstan Kaliningrad region Samara region 2005 Ryazan region Nizhniy Novgorod region Tula region Republic of Tuva 2010 Komi Republic Vologda region Belgorod region Zabaykalskiy krai Vladimir region Primorskiy krai Arkhangelsk region Novosibirsk region Sverdlovsk region Khabarovsk krai Petersburg city-Sankt Tumen region Sakhalin region Magadan region Khanty-Mansiysk autonomous okrug-Yugra Figure 5.14. Distribution of regions in the Russian Federation by average wage in the regional higher education systems (RUR; 2002, 55 The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 56 A World Bank Study Northern regions with oil-dependent economies: Yamalo-Nenets AO (RUR 40,949) and Khanty-Mansiysk AO (RUR 35,924). These regional variations may be considered good since they are responses to local labor markets. Higher education salaries in the regions of Russia have signi�cantly increased over the past nine years, growing almost four-fold from RUR 4,310 in 2002 to RUR 21,319 in 2010. This translates into an average annual increase of 22.3 percent in real terms (see �gure 5.14 on previous page). Recent and Ongoing Reforms New Educational Standards It was decided that, starting in September 2010, new educational standards in higher ed- ucation would be implemented. As in other levels of education, standards are oriented on learning outcomes wri en in terms of competences. Universities can independently select half of their courses and curricula, and must offer optional courses in every educa- tional program. Course offerings also are oriented on the independent study of students: up to 50 percent of learning time is reserved for student self-learning. Federal and National Research Universities The main goals of forming federal universities is the development of the higher education system on the basis of optimization of regional educational structures and strengthen- ing of relations between the universities, economy, and social sphere of federal districts. The strategic mission of each federal university is the formation and development of competitive human capital in federal districts by creating and implementing innovative education services and scienti�c researches. Federal universities implement this mission by organizing and supplying work for large programs of social and economic develop- ment of territories and regions. This work includes preparation of quali�ed personnel, and also scienti�c, technical, and technological decisions. The �rst federal universities were created in 2007 in Southern and Siberian federal districts within the National Project “Education� on the basis of universities and aca- demic centers in Rostov-on-Don (South) and Krasnoyarsk (Siberian). Each university was provided about RUR 6 billion for implementing development programs in 2007–09. Besides federal �nancing businesses and the regional authorities have been active par- ticipants. On October 21, 2009, work on the creation of �ve other federal universities began: in Arkhangelsk (Arctic), Kazan (Privolzhsky), Yekaterinburg (Ural), Vladivostok (Far East), and in Yakutsk (Northeast). The National Research University is an example of the new approach to modernizing the education and science sector and the new institutional forms of the organization of scienti�c and educational activity. Besides additional �nancing, research universities receive special status that gives them more autonomy. Research University is equally effective in education and science and works on the basis of science and education inte- gration. The major objectives of the Research University are generating knowledge and providing for the effective transfer of technologies in the economy; conducting funda- mental and applied research; preparing MA students, and developing retraining and professional skills improvement programs. Research universities should be integrated scienti�c and educational centers conducting research and professional training for cer- tain hi-tech sectors of economy. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 57 The main expected outcome of state support is the creation of world-class research universities capable of preserving, developing, and commercializing advanced technol- ogies while improving vocational training potential in Russia. Two universities received this status without competition in 2007. Twelve universities were selected on a competi- tive basis in 2009 and �fteen universities in 2010. Support for Innovation Activities The state support to universities was a part of work within the National Project “Educa- tion.� Objectives of such support were modernizing higher education, implementing qualitative educational programs, integrating science and education, and forming new �nancial and administrative mechanisms in Russian universities. Support of higher ed- ucation institutions was implemented in 2006–08 on a competitive basis. All Russian high schools could participate in open competition, representing the two-year innova- tive educational programs. Higher education institutions that compete for state support from the federal budget ranging from RUR 200 to RUR 1,000 million. The total amount of �nancing from the federal budget was RUR 5 billion in 2006, RUR 15 billion in 2007, and RUR 20 billion in 2008. Fifty-seven innovative educational programs of Russian high schools got support from the federal budget in 2006–08. Innovative educational programs provided: ■ implementation of new and qualitative educational programs in education practice ■ use of new (including ICT) educational technologies, progressive ways of or- ganizing the educational process, active methods of teaching, and methodical materials corresponding to world level ones ■ high-quality education within the modern quality assurance systems ■ integration of education, science, and innovative activity ■ formation of professional competences for graduates, providing their competi- tiveness on a labor market. Key Problems and Challenges Access Access to higher education continues to increase. This increase was promoted by the creation of new institutions of higher education and by the creation of new courses in ex- isting institutions. The increase continues to be promoted mainly by private institutions. Furthermore, access is favored by decrease in the corresponding age cohort studying in higher education institutions. In 2009 about half of graduates from upper-secondary schools were provided with budget places in universities and other HEIs. Such a situ- ation could raise the problem of inefficient use of public budget. Applicants with low school performance shouldn’t be paid for from state budget, as the educational results of such students are much lower. Quality University governance also does not encourage any external influence over curriculum and training ma ers. Hopefully, the Bologna Process and the transfer to a dual degree system will accelerate changes in course structure and content that will be er reflect 58 A World Bank Study the needs of the modern economy. However, until now many universities have shown themselves incapable of carrying out internal reforms. Russia places only 50th in the country rankings compiled by OECD regarding readi- ness of the country’s higher education and training systems for the knowledge economy, lagging behind both developed and developing countries, including Finland (#1), Swe- den (#2), Denmark (#3), Singapore (#5), Estonia (#22), the Czech Republic (#24), Lithu- ania (#25), China (#29), Latvia (#35), Brazil (#44), and Malaysia (#49).1 (Countries in bold have similar GDP per capita to Russia.) In other words, the Russian higher education system has not been transforming fast enough and cannot be considered as contributing to the country’s competitive advantage compared to efficiency-driven economies. There is a need to set up vital linkages between universities and the business sector to help di- versify the economy in the face of growing global competition and to increase the export of hi-tech products. Recent international rankings of higher educational institutions have shown unfa- vorable performance of Russian HEIs. According to the list of the world’s top universi- ties produced by Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) (which includes 500 universities) only 2 universities in the Russia are included in the international list in 2011 ranking. The English Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) university ranking (includes 200 universities) excluded all Russian universities from the international list (2010–11 rank- ing). This means that quality of Russian universities fall far behind from other foreign HEIs. For example, 35 Chinese and 7 Brazilian universities were included in SJTU list, while the THES list had 6 universities from China (no universities from Brazil). The higher education system as a whole does not serve the regional needs that have been shown in recent World Bank studies in Russia. Higher education has found itself in a complex situation. According to a recent survey of 890 employers in Russia, less than 10 percent of the people employed by them fully corresponded to the specialization indi- cated in their diplomas. Research shows that 75 percent of university graduates in Rus- sia have been taking jobs in areas different from their �elds of study and most of them have to receive some on-the-job training prior to actual work (Galkin 2005). Moreover, universal (easy) access to higher education has a serious impact on ed- ucational outcomes as students performing poorly in school graduation tests are at a lower starting point during �rst year of study in higher education institution and have to �ll that knowledge gap in order to succeed. University governance also does not encourage external influence over curriculum and training ma ers. Hopefully, the Bologna Process and the transfer to a dual degree system will accelerate changes in course structure and content that will be er reflect the needs of a modern economy. However, up until now, many universities have shown themselves incapable of carrying out internal reforms and experts point to the slow move to the Bologna aims in Russian universities. Because it is excessively regulated and gov- erned from the federal level, this system cannot conduct research, take out patents, or establish startups. It is therefore incapable of serving regional needs. Financing and Provision of Resources Private funding of higher education has also been on the rise. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of entrants who pay tuition to study in higher education increased both in public and private institutions by 22 and 34 percent respectively. In addition, private The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 59 �nancing is increasing due to education loans and grants from the private sector, even though �nancial aid mechanism is still undeveloped. There is very li le competition between state research institutions for funding. For those funds that are allocated based on the results of open competitions, the current bud- get code does not allow institutions to sign contracts that last longer than a �scal year. As the result, contractors have at best six months to implement a contract as the rest of the time is spent on the bidding process. This delay signi�cantly affects the quality of outputs, especially for products with a long production cycle (like complex e-learning materials). Policy Options Flexibility and relevance of higher education is the main objective of modernization processes in Russian universities. These issues should be addressed to new educational standards that set requirements to educational process and educational outputs. But im- plementation of new educational standards should be supported by a total retraining of the university teaching staff. The demand for quality and accountability from students and employers is not strong yet, but it is increasing. Today, higher education institutions are stratifying into two groups. The �rst group has strong research and innovation capabilities (with additional federal �nancing); the second group includes regional high schools, which cannot compete with �rst group but are very important, particularly for regional labor markets. This process should not stop. Returning to equal �nancing for all universities—strong and weak—could destroy the �rst early gains in innovation in higher education over the past 3–4 years. But fed- eral and regional authorities should also think about new problems. What should be the regional higher education system? Should it be the same in each region? Should it be like a big network within federal districts? Administrations of regional universities need to understand the importance of interaction between regional universities, regional authorities, and regional society. Notes 1. OECD and World Economic Forum ranked 139 countries according to the readiness of their education systems for new economic reality. References Abankina, I. 2009. “Impact of Uni�ed State Examination on Economic Activity of Higher Education Institutions.� Presentation handouts. State University, Higher School of Economics. Galkin, I. 2005. “Diploma as a Burden.� Russian business magazine N 18, May, 31. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2010. Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators. h p://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2010. ———. 2011. The Global Competitiveness Report 2010–2011. Geneva: OECD. h p://www3. weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2010-11.pdf. RIA Novosti. 2008. “Research Universities: Perspectives for Development.� h p://ria.ru/ online/155458915.html 60 A World Bank Study Russian Federation. 2010. Statistical Yearbook of the Russian Federation—2010., Federal Ser- vice for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. 2011. Academic Ranking of World Universities—2011. h p://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2011.html. TSL Education Ltd. 2011. Times Higher Education World University Ranking. h p://www. timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/top-200.html. CHAPTER 6 Lifelong Learning In 2004, the federal government approved the priorities for developing the educational system of Russia until 2010. One of the main priorities in modernizing the system reads as “Development of a Contemporary System for Lifelong Learning.� During the years that passed since the government approved the priorities for developing the educational system, certain progress has been achieved in a number of directions. Condition and Development Trends Education of Adults (Formal and Nonformal) Under the former Soviet Union, supplementary vocational education, the system for the professional upgrading and retraining of specialists operational in certain industries, was �nanced by the state and rigidly controlled. In the conditions of the market economy, the system of supplementary vocational education became completely self-�nancing, target- ing the training of specialists that are in demand in the labor market. In the course of the administrative reforms, many educational institutions for supplementary vocational education were reorganized and united with universities. Today, Russia is practically missing a comprehensive system to monitor continuous education. Mechanisms for rec- ognition of nonformal and informal education are completely undeveloped. Figure 6.1 presents the share of adults (aged 25 to 64) in nonformal education. Non- formal education refers to organized forms of education that are not part of formal edu- Figure 6.1. Participation in nonformal education and training in the Russian Federation (percent of total respondents aged 25–64, reference period 12 months, 2007) 80 69.4 70 51.2 50.6 60 46.9 43.1 42.1 41.2 40.3 40.2 39.8 39.5 50 Percent 37.6 36.1 35.4 35.2 33.5 32.0 31.3 31.3 30.9 30.7 40 27.2 22.5 20.2 30 18.6 18.4 12.8 12.7 12.1 20 8.0 6.8 4.7 10 0 nl n Sw N o and G erl y Sl Ne ermand U ak erl ny d p s ng lic Es dom Au nia C tria z e S nm s c h lo ark e p ia l lic l g ia Fr ium EU ce Li Ma 7 ua a La nia S ia rtu i n I l Po taly C land Tu atia d e t i o re y ra n– ece 8 R nga 6 an y ia ga a te e nd e u Fe era G rke om r Fi d e 2 th lt n– 00 H 200 R ven B e gar tv Po p a Ki ub Bu u b itz r w ov th a D ypr an to s ni R a ro e tio 2 Sw u an ed C si F us n R sia us R Sources: Data for Russia: Abdrahmanova et al. 2010. Data for other countries: Authors’ calculations based on the Eurostat database, h p://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/. 61 62 A World Bank Study cational programs. There is no data available for the participation of senior individuals (aged 64 or over) in the nonformal education. As seen from the presented data, Russia falls far behind majority of European countries in nonformal education and training. Figure 6.2 shows the participation of adult population in self-learning. Self-learning in this context means informal individual education that is not supported by a diploma or any other document but contributes to the knowledge and skills. Self-learning may take place through (i) from a family member, friend, or colleague; (ii) using printed ma- terials; (iii) learning using computers; (iv) through television/radio/video; (v) by guided tours of museums, historical/natural/industrial sites; or (vi) by visiting learning centers (including libraries). The data indicates that a very low share of the adult population in Russia participates in self-learning. Only one-�fth of Russian adults participated in self learning in 2008. This contradicts the current situation in the world economy, where technological renovations and demographic trends have accelerated due to the exten- sion of the period of citizens being part of active workforce. The low share of those participating in the continuous education system can be at- tributed to: ■ lack of intensive technological renovation in many economic segments, which reduces the relevance of training personnel for the employers ■ a de�cit of educational programs that provide a endees with practical results. Figure 6.2. Participation in informal education and training in the Russian Federation (percent of total respondents aged 25–64, reference period 12 months, 2007) 84.1 90 76.0 75.7 72.3 80 63.8 63.6 62.0 70 54.7 54.6 53.9 53.7 52.4 60 45.3 44.8 44.7 44.6 44.0 Percent 41.2 50 38.9 34.9 40 28.0 28.0 26.2 25.4 20.9 30 20.7 17.4 20 10 0 ed c Au en N tria Fr ay C ce c h lov s e p ia Fi b l i c t e L nd n g ia er m th y Es n i a E U ia C 27 M ia ta rt y lg l Bu ium Sp i a un n Po ary n– nd ra Gr 08 n– ce 06 B e uga S w bli z e S pru L i an Po Ital H ai R en K i tv n at ar G do al w an tio ee a tio la 20 20 ua to s g u u d a m ro nl lg or y ep R ak ra ov de de ni Sl C U Fe Fe an an si si us us R R Sources: Data for Russia: Abdrahmanova et al.2010. Data for other countries: Authors’ calculations based on the Eurostat database, h p://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 63 State Policy Over the recent years, a series of studies in various regions of Russia was held to deter- mine the requirements of employers with respect to quali�cations of workforce and grad- uates of educational institutions. Irkutsk Oblast, Moscow (Shevchenko 2002), Chuvash Republic, Republic of Tatarstan, Saratov Oblast, Perm Region (Kislyakova 2006), Samara Oblast (Shestakova and Konstantinova 2006) and other regions participated. Results of the surveys indicate that the current labor market in Russia, whose main characteristics are flexibility, variability, and highly innovational dynamics, imposes new requirements onto job applicants that were not articulated before. Employers are increasingly showing an interest not only workers’ “knowledge� but also in their “skill,� “ability,� and “readi- ness� to actually perform the work at hand (Kogan2007). Experts acknowledge that the educational process in institutions at all levels of Russian educational system, on aver- age, insufficiently targets the development of general competencies. A positive sign in the educational system is the adoption of a regulatory document by the federal government listing mechanisms for the participation of employer associa- tions in the development and implementation of the state policies in professional educa- tion.1 This gives an opportunity to determine requirements for professional education based on the real situation in the labor market and to reduce the costs of intra-corporate training of personnel. Beginning in 2001, the OECD has been carrying out large-scale activities involv- ing 25 countries to optimize lifelong learning, which, among other things, cover the is- sue of forming quali�cations needed for the rapid response of the working population to the changes in labor market requirements. As a result of these activities, a variety of mechanisms were found to reorganize the quali�cations system, which allows im- proving the coverage, quality, spread, and efficiency of education throughout life. This prompted OECD to begin studying how these mechanisms operate in different coun- tries (Bjornavold and Coles 2010). In Russia, a “recommended� national quali�cation structure was developed; however no further action was taken for its practical approval or application. Some work has been done to create professional standards and sectoral quali�cation structures (in nuclear power engineering, aircraft engineering, information technologies, hospitality, and a number of other professions). However, current prog- ress in this area obviously does not meet the requirements for building an efficient adult education system in Russia. Forming the requirements for adult education within the lifelong learning system implicates that there are active and operational employer and trade associations. The past 10 years have seen a certain progress in this area in Russia. Despite the several positive examples, it must be noted that current social and professional resources are insufficient for a state with signi�cant economic potential and a diversi�ed economy (Pavlova 2011). OECD countries have a principled stance on the recognition of nonformal and in- formal (spontaneous) education (OECD 2008).2 Recognition of nonformal and infor- mal education expands the opportunities for adults to receive education in a convenient form, taking into account their interests, their type of work and their schedule. As a rule, 64 A World Bank Study actively working people �nd nonformal and informal education more convenient, or quite frequently, the only possible form of education. Corporate training on the job with consequent recognition allows increasing efficiency of labor, facilitates the introduction of modern technologies, and creates additional capacity in the economy for increasing competitiveness. The opportunity for formal recognition of quali�cations obtained as part of the nonformal and informal education stimulates the interest of adults to pur- sue lifelong learning. Establishing mechanisms for recognizing nonformal and informal education creates an opportunity to discuss potential approaches for their state support. In present-day Russia, there are practically no resources for independent voluntary certi�cation of personnel. Without such resources, the recognition of nonformal and in- formal education becomes difficult to implement. Some sca ered examples of successful certi�cation centers are available (Yeltsova and Ye�mova 2008). Without building up ap- propriate capacity for official recognition of quali�cations, Russia cannot expect the non- formal and informal education sector to have dynamic growth in innovative industries. The experience of OECD countries in lifelong learning clearly indicates that quali�cation capacity of developed and developing economies will largely depend on the efficiency of procedures to certify professional quali�cations (Mashukova et al. 2006).3 Staff Training (Financing and Coverage) A pronounced trend in the development of human resources in organizations and enter- prises is establishment of private staff training centers and programs. Research indicates that 66 percent of employers prefer to provide additional training or retraining for their employees on the bases of their own educational departments. Overall, this trend is con- sistent with the world trend of internal company training of their personnel. However, in Russia this process is of a speci�c nature: as a rule, the establishment of employers’ own educational departments and programs is caused by the fact that organizations (en- terprises) cannot �nd educational programs of required quality in the market (Nesme- eva 2009). An insufficient number of relevant educational programs for adults speeds up the development of inter-corporate training and the creation of corporate universities. The following approaches to establish corporate universities can be listed: ■ Establish corporate universities on the basis of an existing educational center within the company by combining available training programs on common conceptual basis, common physical and informational infrastructure. ■ Create a corporate university from scratch by introducing primarily highly technological remote learning programs and by developing new training pro- grams for personnel (for instance, VimpelCom CU). ■ Use outsourcing, that is, external providers and the available educational infra- structure of higher educational organizations. For example, the Protek Compa- ny uses the regional network of the LINK International Management Institute as the infrastructure for establishing its own corporate university. Sociological surveys indicate that the share of adults who get trained in recruitment companies is higher than the share trained in the state placement service. This reveals a relatively high activity of private business rendering employment assistance and adult education services. According to the data obtained through sociological surveys by State University, Higher School of Economics, over 95 percent of adult education happens in The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 65 the workplace (�gure 6.3). The presented data demonstrates that the general develop- mental education of adults is practically nonexistent in Russia. However, by empirical evidence employers often complain that workers lack those (general/basic) skills (Laza- reva, Denisova, and Tsuhlo 2006). Figure 6.3. Motivation of adults to participate in lifelong learning in the Russian Federation Change the nature of work 6% Earn more Find another job money 6% 10% Not related to work 4% Improve professional knowledge and skills 35% Perform better at job 39% Source: Abdrahmanova et al. 2007. As far as a �nancial model is concerned, standard per capita �nancing of education is a prevailing concept in the supplementary vocational education programs. This is true for �nancing professional retraining, improvement of quali�cations and training of civil servants, the education of managers and entrepreneurs within the Presidential Program for personnel training, generally accepted approaches to �nancing target programs training company employees at supplementary professional education programs. The cost of implementation of skill upgrade and professional retraining programs is usually determined by the standard cost of educating one a endee. Data (�gure 6.4) indicates that the improvement of professional quali�cations of the personnel is largely �nanced by their employers, who commit to pay for 40–80 percent of the cost of the education. In Russia, the expenditures of organizations for profes- sional training of their staff, as part of the workforce-related costs, constitute only 0.3 percent according to 2006 data (about US$1.35 per employee per month). Compare this with France, where pursuant to the effective legislation, any enterprise and organization with 10 or more of staff is obliged to allocate at least 1.5 percent of the payroll fund for professional education. The actual average for this number is 3 percent. Expenditure for professional education at small enterprises is seven times less than at large enterprises. 66 A World Bank Study Figure 6.4. Sources of �nancing in lifelong learning in the Russian Federation 100 80 60 Percent 40 20 0 Qualifications upgrade Regular professional Professional courses Amateur courses trainings, lectures (for learning new and conferences profession) Attendee (family, friends) Partially by attendee, partially by employer Employer State Placement Service Other sources Source: Abdrahmanova et al. 2007. A probable cause for this situation is the relative instability of personnel at small en- terprises, as well as the lack of sufficient funding for the professional education of the employees. Budgetary �nancing of adult education is at a low level, despite the dynamic growth (�gures 6.5 and 6.6). Figure 6.5. Average monthly costs of organizations for professional education per worker in the Russian Federation (US$) 2.5 2.0 Cost, US$ 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Less than 50 50–99 100–199 200–499 500–999 More than 1,000 Total company staff Source: Authors’ calculations based on data of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and Abdrah- manova et al. 2007. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 67 Figure 6.6. Budgetary expenditure for retraining and upgrading quali�cations in the Russian Federation (US$ million) 500 450 400 350 US$ million 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Consolidated budgets of Russian regions State nonbudget funds Federal budget Source: Authors’ calculations based on Abdrahmanova et al. 2010 and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. In order to incentivize adult education, a new accounting procedure has been ad- opted in Russia for taxation of employee training related income and expenses. Accord- ing to new procedures companies’ expenses on (re)training of staff are tax-exempt. In the future it is expected that this will have a great positive effect on the intensity of quali�ca- tion improvement and retraining of employees. Socially Deprived Groups of People It is possible to identify segments of the population groups that now have limited access to a system of lifelong learning education: ■ Workers of small enterprises. Researchers specify that capacity of personnel training is closely connected with enterprise size: the larger the enterprise is, the more potential it has to give training to the staff and the higher its expenses on one-staff-member training. ■ People 55/60–75 years old. Specialized programs of adults training should in- clude this age cohort in their assessment of economic conditions. ■ The partially employed. If retraining jobless citizens by the public employment services is a usual practice, then training the partially employed is problematic for the education system of Russia. The partial employment does not give con- �dence to the enterprises concerning the further prospects of cooperation with the staff. It restricts the speci�ed persons from accessing services of lifelong learning education. ■ Rural. The educational level of agriculture workers is lower than that of the average participant in the economy. According to researches, there is an abun- 68 A World Bank Study dance of labor in Russia’s rural regions. This abundance is not only absolute but also structural. It is obvious that the development of agriculture and a rural social life demands the formation of an effective training system for adults that includes support for �nding alternative employment. ■ People of able-bodied age who are not active participants of the labor market. In any economy there is a gap between number of persons of able-bodied age and number of the persons involved on the labor market. There are persons who would participate in the labor market if there were correct educational courses for adults. ■ Labor migrants. Enterprises do not have reasons to train migrants if they are not sure that the costs will be compensated. Thus governments of the migration donor countries and the regions-recipients of Russia should be ready to �nd the solution of this situation. The educational services for professional and social quali�cations of workers-migrants should appear on both sides but their stan- dards should be coordinated. ■ Relatives of migrants who did not come to the labor market. Family members can be motivated, trained, and oriented to successfully enter the Russian labor market if there is a special lifelong learning program geared towards them. ■ Foreign students. Research shows that students require additional income, which can be organized by partial employment. Such lifelong learning pro- grams should be developed on the basis of educational institutions in which foreign citizens are trained. Policy Options Considering the available international practices and the current situation, we have formulated the following policy options for Russia’s educational system development strategy: Establish Infrastructure for Lifelong Learning ■ Introduce normative provisions fully regulating the adult education system into the new, integrated legislative document of the education system in Russia (currently under development). ■ Develop a national quali�cation structure based on descriptions reflecting the competencies required for the inclusion of an individual into the practical ac- tivities of various complexity, expected increase of the professional and territo- rial mobility, rapid change of the economic development priorities, need in the regular and rather frequent update of the requirements to the current personnel and results of adult vocational training. ■ Create a regional network of certi�cation centers independent from the edu- cational system and speci�c employers, by which Russian citizens would be able to get formal training recognized all over Russia, as a con�rmation of their professional skills. Skill certi�cation should be done regardless of the education type: formal, nonformal or informal. Not only should nationals of Russia have access to quali�cation certi�cation but the labor migrants should as well. ■ Develop and introduce a single scoring (credit) system for primary and continu- ous professional adult education systems that would allow for a reduction of The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 69 time spent by citizens acquiring the required quali�cations and would expand their possibilities for structuring their individual educational programs. ■ Create conditions for the development of the adult education system integra- tors (that provide comprehensive services to legal entities), personal tutors and education consultants, mass media specializing in the issues of continuous edu- cation development, public institutions on professional assessment and estab- lishment of the adult education program ratings, and the self-regulating institu- tions in the �eld of adult education. ■ Create a network of methodological support aimed at the development of adult education on the basis of existing intellectual and know-how resources. ■ Restructure existing educational institutions of initial vocational and profes- sional education, optimize their network, reject any social or general education functions, recon�gure training programs, transition to the modular principle, introduce a single credit system acknowledged within the system of primary professional education of all levels, and form a network of modern quali�cation centers providing training for all age groups. Universities play large role in establishing infrastructure for lifelong learning as they have fewer regular students and excessive capacity. Develop the Lifelong Learning Services Market, and Saturate It with Quality High-Tech Educational Products ■ Adopt regulatory documents, which would enable commercial entities (given the availability of resources required for the educational process) to implement adult education programs including the issuance of state documents certifying quali�cations upgrades and professional retraining, as well as a possibility to get public orders for training along with other educational institutions. ■ Develop the corporate sector of continuous adult education, which seems prom- ising. In order to develop the corporate education, it is necessary to include the running cost of training centers belonging to the enterprises into the other costs associated with the production and sales. At present, the cost of training in basic and supplementary educational programs, professional training, and staff re- training is treated as other expenses, and only when the training is provided on the basis of contracts either with Russian educational institutions with appro- priate licenses or with foreign educational institutions of the adequate status. In order to foster the development of corporate education, expenses incurred by the enterprises for training and retraining their staff within the framework of their own educational programs, as well as the expenses for arranging on-the- job training for students of educational institutions, should be counted in direct production costs. This would be bene�cial in terms of reducing the enterprises’ taxable basis. ■ Assist educational program development. In priority areas of the innovative economic development of Russia, it would be practical for the state to support competitively chosen, corporate education development programs and regional programs for an overall modernization of vocational education. This modern- ization would have to comply with the social and economic development poli- cies of Russia and the federal subjects. 70 A World Bank Study ■ Regulate access of foreign operators to the adult education system in the areas where Russia is evidently lagging behind in know-how. At the same time, prior- ity should be given to educational projects that envisage the implementation of the continuous education programs jointly by Russian and foreign operators. ■ Develop long-term programs with major migrant donor states to coordinate requirements for these workers’ skills and quali�cations being acquired in the course of vocational education in migrant donor states. ■ Change the priorities of higher education institutions’ activities to reflect the higher rate of adults in the training process caused by �nancial and regula- tory incentives. Higher educational institutions should become the major adult education operators updating human resource capacities for high-tech sectors. Particularly, it should concern the federal and the national research universities. Improve Mechanisms to Finance Lifelong Learning ■ Consider voucher �nancing. Regarding the educational programs �nanced out of the state and municipal budgets, it would be practical to consider a possibili- ty of transition to the voucher concept of �nancing. That would allow launching pseudo-competition mechanisms among the providers of educational services for the state budget money. Perhaps choose a supplier of educational services will in the long-run improve the quality of educational services. ■ Develop the educational crediting mechanisms in the system of adult education with active support from the state. Notes 1. Decree of the Government of the RF dated December 24, 2008 No.1015 “On Approving Rules for Participation of Employer Associations in the Development and Implementation of the State Policy in the Professional Education.� 2. OECD activity “Recognition of Nonformal and Informal Learning.� 3. For instance in Germany a German Accreditation Council (DAR) was established, which is a coordination body aiming to create a common internationally recognized system of accrediting personnel certi�cation bodies both in regulated areas, and as voluntary certi�cation. As part of the Council, personnel certi�cation bodies certify personnel, for instance, in nondestructive materials, welding, plastic process, real estate evaluations. References Abdrahmanova, G., Gohberg, L., Zabaturina, I., Kovaleva, G., Kovaleva, N., Kuznetsova, V., Ozerova, O., Shuvalova, O. 2007. Education in the Russian Federation: 2007. Annu- al Statistical Publication. Moscow: State University, Higher School of Economics. Abdrahmanova, G., Gohberg, L., Zabaturina, I., Kovaleva, G., Kovaleva, N., Kuznetsova, V., Ozerova, O., Shuvalova, O. 2010. Education in the Russian Federation: 2010. Annu- al Statistical Publication. Moscow: State University, Higher School of Economics. Bjornavold, J., Coles, M. 2010. “Added Value of National Quali�cations Frameworks in Implementing the EQF.� European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP). h p://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/. Kislyakova, S. 2006. “Demand by Requirements�. Federal Newsle er of the Kama Region No. 2 (26): 22–25. The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 71 Kogan, Postalyuk. 2007. “Core Competencies in the Structure of Professional Quali�ca- tions.� In Quali�cation Requirements and Quali�cation Structures: A Collection of Ar- ticles, edited by Volkova, Klimova. M., ANE under the Government of the Russian Federation. Lazareva, Denisova, Tsuhlo. 2006 “Hiring or Retraining: Experience of Russian Enter- prises.� Moscow: State University, Higher School of Economics. Mashukova, N., Postalyuk, N., Nikolaeva, G., Asheulov, Y. 2006. Voluntary Personnel Certi�cation System in the Russian Federation: Models and Mechanisms. Moscow: Na- tional Training Foundation. Nesmeeva. 2009. “What Training We Don’t Need�. JobCenter. h p://dps.smrtlc.ru/Disc/ training.htm. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2008. “Status of Rec- ognition of Nonformal and Informal Learning in Germany.� Bonn, Berlin: OECD. Pavlova, O. 2011. “Social and Didactic Aspects of Adult Education.� Research and Pedagog- ical Psychology and Education Journal. h p://obrazovanie21.narod.ru/Files/2011-2_ p013-017.pdf. Russian Union of Entrepreneurs. 2011. “Viewpoint.� h p://www.rspp.ru/Default. aspx?CatalogId=234&d_no=1843. Shestakova, Y., Konstantinova, N. 2006. “Green Shot.� Samara Business Magazine for Small and Medium Business No. 9(25): 2–4. Shevchenko, D. 2002. “Marketing Analysis of Youth Labor and Education Markets.� Journal Practical Marketing No. 2 (60). Yeltsova L.N., Ye�mova S.A. 2008. “Certi�cation of Professional Quali�cations of Grad- uates from Pre-university Professional Education Institutions of the Samara Oblast.� Moscow: DELO. h p://www.interface.ru/fset.asp?Url=/training/bor- land/sertif.htm, h p://www.a-sys.ru/default.aspx?t13=14&t1=2. ———. 2005. “Actual Demand for Skills and Knowledge at Work�. Analytical Report, Business Technologies School, Russia. ———. 2005.“International Consortium of Module and Competency-Based Education.� Materials of the British Council Project. ———. 2011. “Petrodollar Doping Does Not Help the Russian Economy Anymore.� h p://www.km.ru/v-rossii/2011/08/29/gosudarstvennyi-sektor-ekonomiki-rossii/ neftedollarovyi-doping-ekonomike-rossii. Appendixes 73 Appendix A. Reference Statistics—Non�nance Table A1. Number of students in educational institutions in the Russian Federation 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Preschool 7236 6763 6118 5584 5101 4706 4380 4225 4263 4246 4267 4321 4423 4530 4713 4906 5105 5228 5388 including urban 5569 5190 4723 4352 4003 3721 3493 3378 3408 3384 3398 3444 3528 3611 3753 3906 4068 4158 4281 rural 1667 1573 1395 1232 1098 985 886 847 855 862 869 877 895 919 960 1001 1038 1070 1107 School 20503 20598 21144 21567 21729 21733 21479 20879 20074 19429 18439 17323 16167 15185 14374 13766 13436 13330 13318 75 including public 20503 20565 21104 21521 21682 21683 21429 20826 20013 19363 18371 17254 16097 15113 14302 13695 13363 13258 13244 including urban 14444 14501 14873 15146 15259 15238 15049 14581 13998 13471 12783 12017 11232 10497 9940 9557 9396 9405 9502 including primary 160 190 224 250 260 253 244 229 214 210 205 200 192 177 162 148 137 79 74 primary and lower secondary 557 521 513 497 472 448 411 368 338 279 246 217 191 170 158 149 146 177 191 primary and secondary 13397 13456 13782 14029 14136 14134 13982 13567 13025 12572 11939 11224 10489 9811 9301 8960 8825 6257 6303 rural 6059 6064 6231 6375 6423 6445 6380 6245 6015 5892 5588 5237 4865 4616 4362 4138 3968 3854 3742 (Table continues on next page) 76 A World Bank Study Table A1 (continued) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 including primary 269 278 285 291 281 266 250 229 205 190 171 157 135 122 104 113 105 79 71 primary and lower secondary 890 876 877 881 869 850 828 786 740 691 633 578 517 475 449 428 425 434 431 primary and secondary 4830 4841 4997 5187 5191 5245 5215 5141 4977 4916 4692 4411 4123 3928 3721 3516 3361 3140 3049 private - 33 40 46 47 50 50 53 61 66 68 69 70 72 71 71 73 71 74 Initial vocational education and 1773 1742 1699 1690 1670 1667 1676 1694 1679 1649 1651 1649 1604 1509 1413 1256 1115 1035 983 training Secondary vocational education 2090 1994 1871 1930 1986 2030 2068 2176 2361 2470 2586 2612 2600 2591 2514 2408 2244 2142 2126 and training including public 2090 1994 1871 1923 1976 2011 2052 2147 2309 2410 2489 2502 2504 2473 2389 2289 2136 2052 2027 private - - - 7 11 19 17 28 52 60 97 111 96 118 125 120 108 90 99 Higher education 2638 2613 2645 2791 2965 3248 3598 4073 4741 5427 5948 6456 6884 7065 7310 7461 7513 7419 7050 including public 2638 2543 2534 2655 2802 3047 3347 3728 4271 4797 5229 5596 5860 5985 6133 6208 6215 6136 5849 private - 70 111 136 163 202 251 345 471 630 719 860 1024 1079 1176 1253 1298 1283 1201 Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Table A2. Number of educational institutions in the Russian Federation 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Preschool 80317 76674 71214 67031 62867 59065 55397 53031 50647 49253 48232 47835 46675 46518 45696 45151 45607 45346 … including The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 urban 43027 40861 38029 35962 33887 32004 30311 29082 28187 27513 27094 26723 26458 26420 26119 26232 26779 26833 … rural 37290 35813 33185 31069 28980 27061 25086 23949 22460 21740 21138 20539 20217 20098 19577 18919 18828 18513 … School 68270 68478 68634 68970 68799 68432 67889 67550 67063 66833 65662 64466 63182 61497 59402 56407 54259 51657 49469 including public 68270 68110 68187 68445 68259 67862 67321 66943 66428 66171 64979 63759 62474 60771 58683 55710 53568 50977 48804 including urban 19871 20063 20430 20876 21071 21132 21233 21235 21271 21335 21178 21040 20901 20404 20055 19690 19259 18799 18478 including primary 15496 15607 15778 15961 16104 16205 16309 16366 16451 16636 16602 16585 16550 16277 16156 16013 15803 11629 11485 primary and lower secondary 1052 1193 1396 1659 1720 1722 1760 1780 1779 1747 1692 1641 1599 1482 1343 1194 1037 379 330 primary and secondary 1957 1888 1870 1837 1809 1749 1678 1598 1511 1417 1324 1253 1184 1107 1048 988 939 913 923 rural 48399 48047 47757 47569 47188 46730 46088 45674 45157 44836 43801 42719 41573 40367 38628 36020 34309 32178 30326 including primary 19154 19252 19444 19697 19870 20011 20072 20209 20338 20694 20719 20689 20654 20748 20582 20282 19549 18304 17626 primary and lower secondary 16163 16038 15746 15465 15049 14610 14021 13647 13137 12555 11689 10890 9989 8967 7671 5854 5238 3481 2774 primary and secondary 12582 12257 12074 11920 11787 11629 11520 11358 11211 11111 10916 10669 10463 10175 9900 9419 9059 8646 8301 (Table continues on next page) 77 78 A World Bank Study Table A2 (continued) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 private - 368 447 525 540 570 568 607 635 662 683 707 708 726 719 697 691 680 665 including primary - 112 124 141 119 108 82 86 78 68 66 71 68 73 65 65 59 64 64 primary and lower secondary - 36 34 83 107 97 115 103 97 94 82 76 70 75 73 76 67 69 61 primary and secondary - 220 289 301 314 365 371 418 460 500 535 560 570 578 581 556 565 547 540 Initial vocational education and 4269 4273 4203 4166 4114 4050 3954 3911 3893 3872 3843 3798 3686 3392 3209 3180 2855 2658 2356 training Secondary vocational education 2609 2607 2574 2634 2649 2653 2631 2649 2703 2684 2816 2809 2805 2905 2847 2799 2784 2866 2850 and training including public 2609 2607 2574 2612 2608 2593 2584 2576 2589 2595 2626 2627 2637 2688 2631 2566 2535 2564 2586 private - - - 22 41 60 47 73 114 89 190 182 168 217 216 233 249 302 264 Higher education 535 548 710 762 817 880 914 939 965 1008 1039 1044 1071 1068 1090 1108 1134 1114 1115 including public 535 548 553 569 573 578 580 590 607 621 655 652 662 655 660 658 660 662 653 private - - 157 193 244 302 334 349 358 387 384 392 409 413 430 450 474 452 462 Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Table A3. Gross coverage by education in the Russian Federation, percent (by level of education, calculations based on full-time equivalents) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Preschool 52.7 51.3 49.6 49.3 48.7 48.4 48.5 49.8 52.4 53.5 54.8 56.2 57.1 57.1 58.1 59.1 60.0 59.2 58.9 including urban 57.5 56.7 55.7 56.2 56.2 56.6 57.3 58.8 61.9 62.9 64.2 65.5 66.2 66.0 66.6 67.1 67.8 68.1 67.5 rural 41.1 39.1 36.3 34.3 32.7 31.4 30.2 30.9 32.5 33.8 35.0 35.9 37.1 37.4 38.8 40.3 41.5 43.1 42.6 The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 School 83.7 82.7 83.3 83.4 82.9 82.7 81.8 80.7 79.3 79.7 79.1 78.0 76.9 77.0 77.8 79.4 82.0 85.4 87.8 including primary 82.5 80.2 79.9 79.7 78.0 75.4 73.7 73.0 73.3 79.1 84.5 89.2 94.2 94.5 94.2 95.9 97.7 99.6 101.9 lower-secondary 95.7 96.0 96.4 95.4 94.6 94.8 92.5 90.0 88.5 86.0 81.1 77.8 75.5 76.8 79.7 83.4 87.4 92.1 91.3 upper-secondary 45.8 44.7 47.0 49.1 51.4 54.4 58.0 58.8 55.3 55.6 57.9 56.3 51.9 49.3 46.9 43.6 42.0 41.2 46.0 including urban 81.5 81.1 81.9 82.0 81.2 80.9 80.0 78.8 77.9 78.2 78.2 78.0 77.8 78.5 79.9 82.1 85.2 89.5 92.8 primary 78.5 76.5 76.2 76.4 74.8 72.5 71.0 70.2 71.0 76.9 83.3 89.3 96.3 97.4 97.5 99.8 102.1 104.3 107.1 lower-secondary 95.4 96.4 96.9 95.5 93.7 93.1 90.6 88.1 87.6 85.7 81.5 78.2 75.7 77.3 80.7 85.2 90.2 96.4 96.1 upper-secondary 42.5 42.5 45.3 47.6 49.9 52.9 56.4 56.9 53.2 52.9 55.1 55.6 53.0 51.0 48.8 45.3 43.6 42.4 48.2 rural 89.8 86.7 86.7 86.6 87.0 87.2 86.4 85.4 82.9 83.3 81.3 78.1 74.7 73.6 73.4 74.0 75.1 76.7 77.3 primary 92.8 89.7 88.8 87.8 85.7 82.1 79.9 79.0 78.3 83.8 86.8 88.9 89.9 88.6 87.2 87.7 88.4 89.6 90.4 lower-secondary 96.6 94.8 95.2 95.1 96.8 99.4 97.7 95.1 90.8 86.9 80.4 76.9 75.0 75.8 77.6 79.6 81.7 83.3 81.4 upper-secondary 55.5 50.7 51.7 53.1 55.5 58.6 62.4 64.2 62.0 64.1 66.8 58.5 49.0 45.3 42.6 40.0 38.6 38.6 41.2 Initial vocational education 28.0 27.2 26.2 25.8 25.0 24.7 24.0 23.3 22.3 21.8 21.7 21.6 21.3 21.0 21.1 20.5 20.0 20.9 21.5 and training Secondary vocational 34.0 32.2 0.0 30.0 30.5 30.9 30.8 31.9 33.5 33.7 34.0 34.1 34.1 34.0 33.4 33.6 33.5 34.9 38.0 education and training Higher education 22.0 21.4 21.3 22.1 23.2 25.0 27.3 30.5 34.8 38.6 41.1 43.7 45.9 46.3 48.2 50.5 52.5 54.3 55.2 79 Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. 80 A World Bank Study Table A4. Ratio of students to teaching staff in the Russian Federation, by type of institution (by level of education, calculations based on full-time equivalents) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Preschool 8.0 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.8 6.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.4 8.0 8.7 8.7 8.9 School 13.1 12.6 12.6 12.7 12.3 12.3 12.2 11.9 11.7 11.6 11.1 10.7 10.3 9.9 9.7 9.6 9.8 10.3 12.4 including public 13.1 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.0 11.8 11.7 11.2 10.8 10.4 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.9 10.4 12.6 including urban 15.9 15.2 15.0 15.1 14.6 14.5 14.3 14.0 13.9 13.8 13.4 12.9 12.5 12.3 12.0 11.9 12.2 12.5 15.5 rural 9.3 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.2 7.8 7.4 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.8 7.4 8.5 private … 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 Initial vocational education and training … … … … … … … … 12.6 12.8 12.5 12.6 12.4 12.6 12.0 11.3 12.7 … … Secondary vocational education and … … … 17.4 17.5 17.5 16.7 16.9 17.8 18.4 18.5 18.4 18.3 17.6 17.5 16.7 15.8 13.7 … training Higher education 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.7 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.7 8.2 8.5 8.8 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5 8.8 9.2 9.2 including public 7.0 6.9 7.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.6 8.0 8.3 9.0 9.1 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.2 9.3 private - 7.6 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.4 3.3 3.3 4.3 4.8 5.1 5.3 5.7 4.8 4.4 4.2 4.8 7.5 7.7 Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Appendix B. Reference Statistics—Finance The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 Table B1. Basic reference statistics in the Russian Federation 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 GDP (thousand RUR, 13,243,240,000 17,048,122,000 21,625,372,000 26,903,494,000 33,111,382,000 41,668,034,000 39,063,607,900 44,491,434,427 current prices) GDP per capita (thousand 91.33 118.23 150.70 188.40 232.85 293.44 275.29 313.54 RUR, current prices) GPD deflator 111.99 111.73 110.92 109 111.87 113.28 108.8 108.8 (2002=100 percent) Annual currency exchange 30.70 28.81 28.29 26.33 24.55 29.38 30.24 30.48 rate (RUR/US$) Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. 81 82 A World Bank Study Table B2. Expenditures from consolidated budget of the Russian Federation (thousand RUR) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total government expenditures 3,964,871,972 4,669,654,367 6,820,644,980 8,375,227,658 11,378,578,092 14,157,027,085 15,847,343,187 17,301,003,607 Expenditures on education 475,572,313 593,405,714 801,768,145 1,036,436,147 1,342,976,553 1,664,203,454 1,777,872,062 1,893,881,917 Expenditures on preschool education 72,082,198 91,695,482 112,998,395 145,343,418 189,681,422 254,545,594 287,153,306 321,348,572 Expenditures on primary and secondary education 236,631,626 298,124,443 355,979,727 475,916,919 599,001,275 737,104,446 795,686,679 827,391,577 Expenditures on initial vocational education 30,371,903 35,591,896 39,439,675 47,437,365 57,592,247 65,545,395 66,846,093 61,660,118 Expenditures on secondary vocational education 24,109,931 30,487,217 43,318,599 55,335,261 70,447,207 93,870,388 102,198,267 102,090,848 Expenditures on higher education 61,161,249 76,963,724 125,880,266 169,911,420 240,240,187 294,571,614 347,220,578 377,778,048 Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Table B3. Annual government expenditure in the Russian Federation by educational institutions relative to total public expenditure on education 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 The Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 Preschool education 15.2 15.5 14.1 14.0 14.1 15.3 16.2 17.0 Primary and secondary education 49.8 50.2 44.4 45.9 44.6 44.3 44.8 43.7 Vocational education and training 11.5 11.1 10.3 9.9 9.5 9.6 9.5 8.6 Higher education 12.9 13.0 15.7 16.4 17.9 17.7 19.5 19.9 Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. Table B4. Annual government expenditure in the Russian Federation per student by educational institutions relative to GDP per capita 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Preschool education 18.3 17.5 16.6 16.4 16.6 17.0 20.0 19.0 Primary and secondary education 15.0 15.6 15.6 17.6 18.7 18.8 21.8 19.9 Vocational education and training 14.4 13.6 13.8 14.3 15.5 16.7 19.9 17.3 Higher education 12.0 11.1 14.0 14.7 16.6 16.2 20.6 20.6 Source: Federal Service for State Statistics of the Russian Federation. 83 ECO-AUDIT Environmental Bene�ts Statement The World Bank is commi ed to preserving In 2010, the printing of endangered forests and natural resources. this book on recycled paper The Office of the Publisher has chosen to saved the following: print World Bank Studies and Working • 11 trees* Papers on recycled paper with 30 percent • 3 million Btu of total postconsumer �ber in accordance with the energy recommended standards for paper usage • 1,045 lb. of net greenhouse set by the Green Press Initiative, a non- gases pro�t program supporting publishers in • 5,035 gal. of waste water using �ber that is not sourced from endan- • 306 lb. of solid waste gered forests. For more information, visit www.greenpressinitiative.org. * 40 feet in height and 6–8 inches in diameter T he Education System in the Russian Federation: Education Brief 2012 is part of the World Bank Studies series. These papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank’s ongoing research and to stimulate public discussion. This education brief is intended for non-Russian researchers who wish to familiarize them- selves with the Russian education system and more generally for anyone involved in education and education policy. While it does not provide exhaustive information on the Russian education system and all of its challenges, it does provide a snapshot of its main features, as well as a combination of statistical data and qualitative information to describe the organization and functioning of the education system in the Russian Federation. Included in the brief is an up-to-date array of indicators that measure the current state of education in the country. These indicators provide information on the human and �nancial resources invested in education and on how education and learning subsystems operate and evolve. The report also examines the key problems and challenges faced by education system administrators and policy makers, and it discusses policy options and possible measures for improvement. World Bank Studies are available individually or on standing order. This World Bank Studies series is also available online through the World Bank e-library (www.worldbank.org/elibrary). ISBN 978-0-8213-9514-1 SKU 19514