(1963) ACCESSIBILITY VS. AVAILABILITY OF EDUCATION AS TWO KEY PHENOMENA OF EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE AND EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

摘要

The currency of the present research associates with the need in the development of school infrastructure that is promulgated in the governmental documents in Russia. In this context, the socalled Russian 'territories of priority development' are in focus of both governmental and public interest. The author starts with the elaboration on the definition and application of the two terms - i.e. ‘accessibility of education’ and ‘availability of education’ - that are intensively referred to in the research-field of both education quality assurance and education management. The two relevant phenomena are considered as the key ones in the context of school service provision that rests to be the responsibility of the government, but is progressively perceived as a shared value - and, thus, a shared effort-point - for several stakeholders: the national and regional governments (including education authorities), social structures and institutions, professional communities, local communities, etc. Thus, the research questions of this study would read as: 1 what the conceptual difference between accessibility and availability of education as the phenomena of education quality assurance and education management is; 2 what the innovative model of the school infrastructural development elaborated from the ground-point of accessibility and availability of education would be. The method used in the study is both quantitative and qualitative, comprising expert report analysis (i.e. a tested questionnaire) for tackling the research question #1 (with the planned coverage of 2,400 parents, students and local education officials in the Russian territories of priority development). In addition to that, the research method of modelling is applied too (for question #2), where the five main models of infrastructural development planning are resorted to, i.e. the p-median model, the models of the regular and maximum coverage location, the hierarchical model of placement and distribution, and the spatial interaction model. The key results of the research are interdisciplinary, and contribute to the three generalized fields of academic, economic and infrastructural consideration, i.e.: a) advanced terminological clarity in the matters of the education quality assurance and education management; b) application of the innovative model of the school infrastructural development (the one elaborated by the author) for the real-life practice of the governmental bodies/institutions; c) increase in the public awareness in the realm of education availability, accessibility and regional infrastructural development. Although it is Russia’s experience that is scrutinized in this conference paper, there are strong reasons to consider the outcomes of this research to be applicable at the international level too, i.e. in the countries and regions outside of Russia.