INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL TRAJECTORY MANAGEMENT: STATUS, TRENDS, PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL TRAJECTORY MANAGEMENT: STATUS, TRENDS, PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

V.A. Khlyustina

Tyumen state university, Tyumen

(Russia).

E-mail: v.a.khlyustina@utmn.ru

Abstract. Introduction. The current stage of development of education in Russia, characterized by the continuation of reforms and intense innovation processes of individualization, require essential changes in management. For individual education trajectory, it takes not only a revision of the paradigmatic foundations of such management, but also the adoption of complex measures for improving its efficiency and reducing excessive centralization.

The aim of the present publication is to study the status and prospects of individual education trajectory management in the Russian Federation.

Methodology and research methods. The author used the methodology of an interdisciplinary and system-based approaches to the analysis of the considered phenomenon; methods of theoretical analysis, synthesis and generalization.

Results. Negative tendencies and contradictions in modern management of individual education trajectory, including problems of differentiation of the rights, competences and powers of bodies of various levels of management are revealed. The condition of education management is considered in the context of common problems of its modernization and key innovative vectors of development of the society. Detailed analysis of main trends of management is carried out; its systemacity and balance are presented from the positions of individual education trajectory management members and a specific variety of the functions realized by them. System-genetic foundations of management, its recurrence, compliance with the principles of system inheritance are analysed; effectiveness, equifinality, management efficiency in its social, economic, pedagogical and organizational measurements are studied.

Scientific novelty concludes in the reasons identification of a gap between the proper and existing management of an individual education trajectory. The perspective directions of improvement of this system of education are singled out.

Practical significance. The author provides the recommendations on the use of the proposed ideas concerning the revision of the current approaches to the management of education and educational systems in individualization.

Keywords: individual education trajectory, education and educational systems management, paradigmatic management bases; management efficiency.

For citation: Khlyustina V. A. Individual education trajectory management: status, trends, problems and prospects.

Введение

The functioning and development of the economy in Russia, increasing its global competitiveness are determined not only by investment opportunities, legislative initiatives, innovative potential or external constraints, but primarily by the presence of competitive qualified personnel, qualitative changes in the structure of human capital, in the increment of which the key role belongs to higher education.

It seems that outwardly the correct thesis, over the past few years, about the main problem of Russian education - focusing primarily on the training of highly qualified specialists in their field (primarily natural sciences), in fact, can be considered false, since the investigation is presented as a reason. In order to get away from the goals of involving young people in exclusively professional activities, the state must take care of training specialists who are able to develop independently in the face of uncertainty.

In other words, to ensure the development of an innovative economy, youth should become the main objects for investment in human capital in combination with the development of demanded supra-professional competencies: innovativeness, creativity, enterprise, communicativeness, solidarity, efficiency [1, 2]. In this regard, it makes sense to dwell on some problems of managing the field of education, analyzing the results of its reform over the years of the new Russia and current processes of modernization.

This is important to do right now, when a large number of strategies and plans come into force from 2020 to 2025, which relate to both the staffing of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and youth development in general, which will help to adjust the educational policy.

Let us outline the circle of conceptual and methodological problems and issues, which, in our opinion, are the most important and promising for ensuring the successful implementation of IET and improving education management, which will be discussed later.

These include:

• paradigmatic foundations of governance;
• systematic and balanced management of IET from the standpoint of the powers of its subjects, their functions, species diversity;
• systemogenetic foundations of management, primarily its cyclical nature, compliance with the principles of systemic inheritance;
• effectiveness, equifinality, management efficiency in its social, economic, pedagogical and organizational dimensions.

This list does not exhaust all aspects of the management of the new educational system that need analysis. However, the volume of the article does not allow expanding the circle of the topic under discussion.

Literature review

The problems of IET management, as well as education management, due to its complexity, are initially at the junction of different disciplines. Its consideration can and should be based on the theoretical, conceptual and methodological basis of pedagogy, management theory, decision theory, systemology, sociology and other scientific disciplines.

To date, the phenomenon of controlling an individual educational trajectory has been studied to one degree or another extremely generally, from the standpoint of management and the systemology of education in general, system genetics and cycle theory [3,4]; sociology of education [6–8]; qualification of education, qualimetry of social systems management [6, 7]; philosophy and cultural foundations of education [9].
It seems to us fruitful a whole series of ideas put forward by researchers: process, design-and-qualitative, paradigmatic approaches to the management of educational systems; pedagogical design, the use of systems engineering, methodology of functional modeling; management of the educational system on the basis of cyclicality and taking into account the stages of the life cycle; development and application of norms and standards in the management of educational institutions; system management of innovative processes in education, etc.

However, with the unconditional value of diverse views on IET and its management, they do not allow a complete, complete picture of the state and trends of managing the new educational system.

Materials and methods

In our work, we relied on a content analysis of a database of scientific sources and available statistical data on the work of regional education management bodies, the Tyumen State University and the Ural Federal University, and regional educational development institutions. Some provisions of the article intersect with those already put forward in other published articles and monographs [1,2]. But they are more dedicated to the problems of school management, issues of quality and qualimetry of education, design and application of systems for its provision and assessment.

Research results

The leading role in the management of IET, as part of educational management, belongs to paradigmatic foundations. Mistakes at the stage of formulating initial, deductive provisions, conceptual principles and ideas are fraught with the loss of not only material and financial, but also human resources, a slowdown in the pace of development, and a decrease in the competitiveness of educational structures at various levels in the context of globalization. These errors are exacerbated if they begin to be actively broadcast by managers at all levels and laid down in the management policy of specific educational institutions.

In the table, what was said is illustrated by the example of two, it seems to us, far from indisputable paradigm settings formulated for the management and implementation of IET in universities: the reasons for the emergence of such settings, their consequences and ways to minimize negative consequences are indicated.

Examples the paradigmatic backgrounds negatively influencing the quality of individual educational trajectory management  

It is necessary to pay attention to the ratio of deductive and inductive principles in IET control settings as a model of education. The aspect of deductivity assumes that the subject of management formulates for himself a certain general supposed direction of managerial actions for the program of implementation, implementation of IET, and only after that carries out specific managerial actions. However, unfortunately, in the studied practice, the management of IET most often occurs according to the inductive scenario: first, management decisions are made aimed at the transition and implementation of the new model, and only then they get some form and justification.

An example of an inductive approach is the history of Tyumen State University. Until now, since the beginning of the emergence of IET at the university, neither its developers, nor those who directly implement this model, have been able to formulate an accurate description of the management of IET with its subsequent implementation in general provisions in the law on education and other regulations. The best way out of the current impasse is to immediately describe all the processes included in this model, taking into account all the described regulatory acts. There are many other “examples” of paradigmatic inconsistency in educational management: the transfer of Russian higher education to a two-level model (Federal act-273 has already legalized a three-level model of higher education [3]); Conducting starting 2012 ranking universities by dubious criteria; et al. [1,2]. Unwillingness to switch to a different model in universities or, on the contrary, hasty, rash decisions, stimulation of dubious innovations that bring effect in the best case only in the short term, and in fact do nothing to overcome the lag in the development of education from the international demands of the economy and production - all this it has extremely negative consequences, as it is associated with unjustified labor and time costs to support an already outdated belief system, this gives rise to a set of new Lemma and contradictions, which are superimposed on existing ones.

In order to exclude managerial arbitrariness, it is possible and necessary to raise the question of multi-stage, multi-level diagnostics of knowledge of managerial staff and their draft management decisions. For the same purpose, the potential of simulation based on the mathematical apparatus and the potential of theories of probability and analysis of operations should be used. It is necessary to legislatively include a description of the IET model, which will include an ideal representation of the federal state educational standard, establish mandatory standards and develop procedures for the economic, legal and professional audit of management activities related to IET.

Especially a lot of problems and contradictions have accumulated in issues related to legal regulation and the powers of subjects of education management, their functions, and the specific diversity of management. The solution to these problems is carried out by adjusting the regulatory framework and organizational structure, conducting a series of activities to include representatives of educational organizations in the main aspects of the new education model, and introducing modern automated information management systems.

The systematic and balanced management of IET in the structure of an educational organization can be talked about in a positive way if a number of ordinary didactic principles are applied to management, such as the principle of directing instruction towards solving the relationship between the tasks of education, training and the general development of students. This principle follows from the fact that education is determined by the needs of a democratic society in a comprehensively and harmoniously developed personality. It also considers the logical relationship of the learning process with the processes of education, training and development in a holistic pedagogical process. So in the management of IET it is necessary to take into account the comprehensive effect on the model, and the student’s point of view, and the point of view of the teacher and other participants in these relations. Moreover, the entire system of educational organization should not be redone, but transformed considering current trends, not leaving everything as it was, adding new directions in separate blocks.

Currently, the structure of the university has developed a rather rigid, education management system with a significant concentration of rights and powers among its higher structures. On the one hand, this ensures the effectiveness of the development and implementation of a unified educational policy of an educational institution, and the preservation of a single educational space. On the other hand, the student in this system does not have the necessary amount of freedom in choosing his educational path, moreover, the teacher is not always able to give the necessary advice in the situations facing the student, which raises a number of problems associated with at least each student mastering the material. And if in relation to operational management it is still possible to talk about cases of adequate response, then strategic management is fully or partially destabilized.

Among other things, higher education institutions are under a certain influence of strategic attitudes and normative acts that regulate and establish certain quantitative and qualitative indicators. At present, old mechanisms are used to manage educational trajectories and organize the educational process in the form of separately existing deans of institutes, individual academic groups, and the nominal existence of elective disciplines, the percentage of which does not inspire confidence regarding individualization within the curriculum. In the structure of the university, in spite of its richness and multi-level structure, the departments and centers regulating work in the conditions of another education model are not included. However, there are included departments related to both youth policy and work on the vocational guidance of students, the number of such departments ranges from 7 to 20. In addition, there are centers in each department, the number of which can reach 10. And almost every institute has its own educational process organization strategy.

Such a concentration of resources, scientific, methodological, and personnel potential testifies not so much to the overcrowding of management structures not only by the model, but also of the university, as about their inability to exist in a single educational space of one university. This can be confirmed, for example, by the Ural Federal University, where, with all the intentions of changing the model of individual education, this new model cannot come into force. For several personal reasons, teachers remain to carry out educational activities according to the old principles, while the management stops its activities at the stage of collecting information and formulating requirements for the model of individual educational trajectories. This is a relatively correct move, from the point of view of the sequence of managerial actions, but from the point of view of the practical application of managerial decisions, it is not working, due to the lack of communication between the university management layers and the introduction of appropriate structural changes in this very management.

It seems that the governance structures of the university, in particular IET, should focus more on the development and implementation of state policy in the field of education (now, for example, issues of equalizing the capabilities of each student, especially regardless of their physical, psychological and other capabilities, are especially relevant); improving educational normative regulation at the level of individual subjects of educational management (perhaps it would be advisable to create a Student Support Office at the level of the university system, as was done at Tyumen State University); initiation of new roles in the education system, as an engineer of educational trajectories, etc.

The species diversity of management functions in recent years, especially at the university level, is increasingly moving away from the positions of control, monitoring, and evaluation of student capabilities. Moreover, very often the uncollected necessary statistical data and information find rational application in the management process of precisely new models of education. Management entities strive to build it without worrying about feedback, not considering that this style of work in rapidly changing conditions has significant limitations. Management is built up in relation to very short cycles. So, at the middle levels of management, a lack of understanding of the basic principles of work within the framework of the new model prevails, and at the student level there is a complete lack of understanding and inability to exist in the conditions of independent choice of one's educational trajectory.

All the above indicates the need to implement, within the framework of the current legislation, measures to optimize the distribution of powers among the IET management levels. It is, first of all, about creating a department that regulates the work of teachers and students in the framework of IT, as well as about strengthening the responsibility of management at the institutional (in educational organizations) and municipal levels for fulfilling their duties and at the same time creating a mechanism to protect these levels from unlawful interventions from above, from the substitution of their activities by subjects of management of higher levels.

Turning to the systemogenetic foundations of management, including IET, we turn, first, to the mechanisms of systemic inheritance, which, according to A. I. Subetto, provide stability, quality of educational systems and reproducibility of their main elements [4]. At the university, through systemic inheritance, thanks to managerial decisions, currently established approaches to advanced training and professional retraining of teaching staff are being reproduced; organization of the educational process in the form of a class-lesson system, etc. There are examples when a violation at a certain stage of the system-genetic laws necessitated the reconstruction of certain lost elements of the education system (for example, the physical education and sports complex “Ready for work and defense”, etc.).

At the same time, the intensive innovation activity of recent years has led to the adoption of such managerial decisions that have made or can make significant changes to the inheritance mechanism. Acceptance of the existence of a new educational model and declared intentions to implement on its basis the introduction of individual educational paths, implying an independent choice of disciplines by a student from a large number of presented, developed by the teacher himself, is also fraught with negative consequences, as it can generate unhealthy competition in teaching groups. Creating conditions under which an individual teacher exorbitantly strives for professional success, ignoring the collectivistic nature of pedagogical activity, can result in not only a decrease in the quality of the educational process, a significant deterioration in the socio-psychological climate at the university, but also irreversible personnel processes in the educational organization system.

A separate subject of the analysis of systemogenetic processes in education from the standpoint of the influence of management on them is the strategic plan for the implementation of individual educational. Note that this decision, in fact, introduced new elements into the system of general and vocational education that changed a number of connections and relations in this system, primarily organizational and managerial and economic ones (the procedure and standards for developing curricula, using property; opportunities for extrabudgetary activities, etc.).

The annual experience of applying the positions of this strategy at TSU showed that the management decisions made to implement it during the initialization of these changes turned out to be insufficient for the complete transition of individual educational paths, and the hasty implementation of these decisions can lead to a deterioration in the status and development potential of the university, in other words, the set rate really high.

Any management in social systems, including education, involves focusing on a specific result and focus on efficiency. Therefore, its equifinality, effectiveness and efficiency may be important aspects of the analysis of education management of IET.

Equifinality is a key criterion for management effectiveness. Equifinality shows the achievement of the results claimed in a management project. To one degree or another, the initially set goals were achieved during the implementation of individual modules in the curriculum of bachelors, the informatization of education using an information platform, the inclusion of possibly necessary roles in relations within the organization of the educational process, etc.

For this, certain funding was allocated, special programs, normative legal acts were adopted, special orders were issued to include separate departments and the “Single Dean’s Office” in the university structure, an administrative resource was used, a number of lectures related to the management and formation of IET for management personnel and pedagogical staff were held collective university with P. G. Schedrovitsky. Several examples of managerial initiatives can be cited, suggesting positive changes in the education management system, considering the introduction of IET, attempts by the distributed group work of the managerial layer on issues of the distribution of roles and responsibilities in the new education model, etc.

The problems of the equifinality of IET management are not only and not so much limited resources, as the lack of form or low efficiency of the formed program-target installations within the team; predominant reliance on the administrative layers; initial fallacy in setting goals.

The equifinality of education management, including IET, is closely related to aspects of efficiency, among which the following are distinguished in management theory:

● social efficiency reflects the degree of satisfaction of students, consumers of educational services, participants in educational relations;

● pedagogical effectiveness shows the degree of achievement of educational results, effects on a personal level from the processes of not only learning, but also upbringing;

● the organizational aspect of efficiency demonstrates the achievement of target indicators, the implementation of managerial decisions, the implementation of planned, programmed activities on time;

● economic efficiency allows us to compare the results obtained, the achieved effects with the applied resources, primarily material and financial [2, 8].

The problem of modern IET management is that in assessing the effectiveness of a particular educational structure or action, of a particular management subject, of an educational organization, the emphasis is unduly shifted to outdated indicators of the effectiveness of the educational process, as well as to the economic field. Given which, we can assume that the effectiveness of the new model cannot be evaluated now, due to the lack of its full implementation and real graduates of this model. However, this ignores the fundamental provision that education is a public good and the period of return on the funds invested in it is quite long (according to various estimates, from 10 or more years). Thus, the use of efficiency as one of the key criteria in the management systems of individual educational trajectories requires a balance of all four of its components listed above.

Discussion and conclusions

The analysis of the problems of education management in general and IET presented in the article, respectively, provide grounds for a set of proposals for resolving open contradictions. Required:

• • development and implementation of a training program for a new formation of managers, a new model for building managerial careers in education;
• • raising the question of the quality of management, the implementation of a scientific approach to assessing its quality, including the use of potential and achievements of management «qualimetry», expert, index, probabilistic and statistical and its other special sections [10];
•  development and adoption of a series of regulatory legal, by-laws, defining the construction and application of individual educational paths in the university system in the Russian Federation;
•  application of the simulation modeling mechanism in the strategic management circuit, at the stage of development and initiation of changes to the IET management system;
• application of the potential of functional modeling, the methodology of functional modeling IDEF, especially when it comes to reconstruction (reengineering) or replacement of existing or designing new systems and organizational mechanisms [5];
• a description of the roles in the education system, which provides for the inclusion of support for IET in the main activities of the university tutor;
• development and adoption in the status of a regulatory legal document of a quality management standard for an educational organization, municipal and regional systems of general, professional and additional education.

The article has not yet been received by the editors.

About the author: Khlyustina Varvara - bachelor of the direction “Information Systems and Technologies”, master of the direction of “Pedagogical Education”, administrator of the center for support of talented students of the Department of Youth Policy of the Tyumen State University; Tyumen (Russia). E-mail: v.a.khlyustina@utmn.ru

1. Thomson K., Bachor  D., Thomson G. The development of Individualised Educational Programmes using a decision‐making model // UK: British Journal of Special Education No. 1, Vol. 29. 2002. p. 12-19.
2. Goepel J. Constructing the Individual Education Plan: confusion or collaboration? // US: The Author(s). Journal compilation. Iss. 3, Vol. 242009. p. 126-132.
3. Bowen H. Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. // US: Routledge, Taylor and Francis group. 2018. 78 pp.
4. Jackson G. A., Weathersby G.B. Individual Demand for Higher Education. // UK: The Journal of Higher Education. Iss. 6, Vol. 46. 2006. p. 623-652.
5. Hainmueller J., Hiscox M. J. Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade. // UK: The IO Foundation and Cambridge University Press. Iss. 2, Vol. 60. 2006. p. 469-498.
6. Lane I. F. Change in Higher Education: Understanding and Responding to Individual and Organizational Resistance. // US: Journal of Veterinary Medical Education. Iss. 2, Vol. 34. 2007, p. 85-92.
7. Tholen G. The Social Construction of Competition for Graduate Jobs: A Comparison between Great Britain and the Netherlands. // UK: British Sociological Association. Iss. 2, Vol. 47. 2012. p. 267–283.
8. Chamorro‐Premuzic T. Soft skills in higher education: importance and improvement ratings as a function of individual differences and academic performance // UK: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology. Iss. 2, Vol. 30. 2010. p. 221-241.
9. Perryman J., Calvert G. WHAT MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO TEACH, AND WHY DO THEY LEAVE? ACCOUNTABILITY, PERFORMATIVITY AND TEACHER RETENTION // UK: British Journal of Educational Studies. Iss. 12, Vol. 20. 2019. p. 181-210.
10.  Brynin M. Individual Choice and Risk: The Case of Higher Education // UK: British Sociological Association. Iss. 2, Vol. 47. 2012. p. 284–300.