, , ,

<<


 >>  ()
Pages:     | 1 || 3 |

ɠҠ , Ƞ Š ...

-- [ 2 ] --

3. .., ..., , .., ..., , : . . ,, , [1]. .

, ., , ,, ,.  . , . , . , . , . , ..

堫໠.蠫, 17.10.2007 , ,,[4].

, .

. (,,) .堭, ,,.. . , . .

Ԡ , . , , . . , ,, . .Ѡ, , .. .  , . ,..:, , , , , ..

, , . , ., ,.  , .. . Ѡ ,.. ,. 򠖠, . :1,2, 3..[2].

.

1.

: ( ) ( (/,, (,, ..) ..) , , , , .

, ,, (5) (4).

, 90, , . . . , . ., . , .

砫黠蠫黠. (, ,) ,. ., ( ) PhD ( ). ?Ƞ, , ,,()?

( ) (Ġ).ݠ͠ ?,? , . ,() . ., , .࠭.

, [3].,. . .  . , , ., ,. , .堭 , . . :

1. (, );

2. . ... , .  ;

3. , .. .

:

1. ǠΠ ( ) 11.10. 2007 // www . mongovruproj . . / /4234 2. .: .//BolognaProcessMinisterialMeeting,London,May 3. ..,..,.. //,2007,2.

.., .  񠖠 ,, . 蠖堖 , . . ,,, Ƞ.

, , , , , . , . , ,.

, .  . [10].  . ,, , .. , .

,, , . ,. ,,. , .,, . , ;

..Ӡ, [5].,, ,ࠫ. ­, .蠖 ,,,堫 ,蠫軠 ,, , ,.

, ,⠫ .  , . , 젫 , 񠖠[7]. ʠ, , . . ,, ,, , . :

1. ǠԠN232Ǡ242007"Π ( )" //http://www.mon.gov.ru/dok/proj/4234/ 2. //http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 3. ..,..,.. //,2,2007.

4. . //http://www.prof.msu.ru/publ/book6/c66_05.htm 5. .: //,2,2007.

6. . .,191999// http://www.rudn.ru/index.php?pagec=267.

7. . , //http://www.vovr.ru/?set=content&mc=3 8. AbouttheBolognaProcess//http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronder wijs/bologna/about/ 9. Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999 //http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be /hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/MDC/BOLOGNA_DECLARA TION1.pdf 10. London Communiqu//http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be /hogeronderwijs /bologna/documents/MDC/LondonCommuniqu18May2007.pdf ::,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,.

Helen H. Roberts Paul J. Pieper University of Illinois at Chicago EconomicsofEducation: schoolchoiceandproductionfunction :젫 ໠, .. .  A major policy and scientific issue is explaining differences in schoolqualityandoutcomes.WithintheU.S.andinternationally,there arenumerousreportsofdifferencesinschoolqualityandhypothesized waysthatthesedifferencescouldberelatedtodifferencesinexpendit uresandteachersalaries.Thesehypothesescanbedistinguishedbyex amining an outcome measure like standardized test scores, but test scoresasmeasuresofqualityoroutputhavealsobeenquestioned.. MostelementaryandsecondaryschoolsintheU.S.arepublic.The issueofschoolreforminevitablyraisestheissueoflocalversusnational controlofpublicelementaryandsecondaryschools.IntheU.S.,state andlocalgovernmentsprovideschools,certifyteachers,andmandate andregulateschoolcurricula.Anotherperennialreformissueistherole ofprivateschoolsinthislargelypublicmarket.Sincethe1970s,about 10%ofelementaryandsecondarystudentsattendprivateschools.About threefourthsoftheseprivateschoolsarereligiouslyaffiliatedwhichisa pointofcontentioninthevoucherdebate.Whiletheoverallshareof privateschoolshasfluctuatedsomesincethe1960s,theshareofCathol icschoolsintheprivateschoolshasfallenfromalmost90%in1960be lowtwothirdsin1980. Inadditiontotestscores,educatorshavebeenconcernedaboutstu dentsdroppingoutofhighschoolfordecades.Alongwithtestscores, completionratesareanimportantindicatorofschoolqualityandeffect iveness.Intheaggregate,thehighschoolcompletiondatadontappear towarrantagreatdealofconcern.Nationwide,87%ofU.S.adultsaged 25to64havefinishedhighschoolorhigherlevelsofeducation.Thisag gregatenumberputstheU.S.inrelativelygoodcompany.Thecountries withover80%uppersecondaryeducationorhigherin2002included Canada,CzechRepublic(which,with88%washighestintheOECD list),Denmark,Germany,Japan,Norway,Sweden,andSwitzerland. Theissueoflocalcontrolofschoolshasbeenahotbuttonpolitic ally.Theshareofstateandnationalfundingofprimaryandsecondary educationhasbeengrowing.Partofthistrendarisesasdistrictsmove awayfromusingpropertytaxesasthemainfundingsource.Localprop ertytaxesusedtoprovideover50%ofschoolfunding.Thisrevenue sourcewassuccessfullychallengedinthecourtsandlegislaturesinthe 1970s,sothatstatesincreasedsupportforschools.Statesnowprovide, onaverage,about45%,withlocalgovernmentsupportatabout40%. Between 6% and 8% of elementary and secondary schools funding comesfromthefederalgovernment,whichhasheldsteadysincedoub linginthe1960s. Schoolchoiceinpublicschoolshasbeenincreasing,butfromalow base.In1993,12%ofpublicschoolstudentschosewhichpublicschool toattendandtherestwereassigned,usuallybyhomelocation.In2003, 17%ofpublicschoolstudentsattendedchoiceschools.Thismaynotbe thecaseCarolineHoxby(2002)statesthatwhilecharterschoolsin Arizonaenrolledonly4.4%ofthestudents,theyprovidedaboutathird ofnewteachingpositions. Theargumentsforvouchersincludethattheywouldremoveatleast someofthefinancialconstraintspreventingschoolsfromexperimenting tobettereducatestudents,thatparentscouldbettermatchschoolstostu dents,thatcompetitionamongschoolswouldincreasevarietyandqual itywhileloweringcosts.Theargumentsagainstvouchersincludecon cernsabouteducationalqualityatschoolswithouttrackrecords,equity issuesaboutusinglotteriestoallocatescarcespots,andconcernsthat givingvoucherstoreligiousschoolsamountstostatesupportforreli gion.Concernshavealsobeenraisedabouttheeducationofspecialchil drenwhichareonaveragemuchmorecostlytoeducate.Opponentsof vouchershavealsoarguedthatvoucherswillleadtomorediscrimination andsegregationacrossvarioustypesofstudentsthatmaymakeotherso cialgoalsmoredifficulttoattain. ChicagoPublicSchoolsisthe4thlargestschooldistrictinthecoun try, behind NYC, LA, and Puerto Rico. In 20022003, Chicago had 436,000studentsat608schools(roughly500elementaryand100high schools)and24,584teachers.CPSgraduated15,653studentsin2002. Thisyear(20067),CPShas623schools,including31elementaryand 16highschoolcharterschools.Chicagohassomepubliccharterschools inadditiontoitstraditionalpublicschools.Schoolchoiceisavailable,in thatstudentsmayapplytomagnetschoolsoutsidetheirneighborhood. Exceptfortheirneighborhoodschool,theirchosenschooldoesnot havetoacceptthem,however,ifspaceisscarce.Admissionpracticesto schoolsandprogramsvary.Inpractice,moststudents(ortheirparents) choosetheschoolsclosetowheretheylive,despitewidedifferencesin schoolsprogramsandrigor.SeeCorreaetal.(2004)fortablesand mapsofwherestudentsattendschoolandRodericketal.(2006)forin formationonprogramsatdifferentschools.

The traditional economic framework used to analyze education takes a production function approach. (See Ashenfelter and Krueger, Ashenfelter and Rouse,CutlerandLlerasMuney,Hoxby(1996),and manyothers.)Inthisapproach,schoolstakeinputslikepreviousknow ledgeandhabitsandthenalongwithteachers,buildings,studenttime, producessomethingcalledthatishardtodefineexactly,butcallededu cation.Inshort,theeducationproductionfunctionusesinputstopro ducelearning.Ifwecanaccuratelydefineinputsandoutputs,thepro ductionfunctioncanbeestimatedandthenusedtoseeifresourcesare allocatedinthemostcosteffectivemanner. Thefirstwaveofschoolingproductionfunctionsgeneratedmore questionsthananswers.Educatorsdiscountedtheseearlyestimatesthe relationshipsbetweeninputsandoutputdidntmakesense.Theearly studiesfailedtogaveinconsistentevidencethatanymeasurableinputs weresystematicallyrelatedtostudentperformance.Assomeofthese initialflawswerefixed,asecondpuzzlehasemerged.Boththequantity and quality of schoolinputswhen measured by expenditures hasin creasedorremainedsteadybuttheoutput,measuredbytestsnationally andinternationally,isfalling.Oneproblemwiththesestudiesareques tionsaboutthehowvalidandmeaningfularetheexpendituremeasures. Moreprovocatively,measuresofstudentlearningbyindividualsshow definiteteachereffects,thatis,someteachersaresystematicallybetter thanothers.Thishasbeenusedtojustifyteachermeritpayinitiatives. Economicreasoningalsoindicatesholesintheconventionalwis domabouteducationandschools.Statisticscanbethatarenotproperly interpreted in context, such as when additional information is over looked,canbeverymisleading.Thenextsectiondescribeswidelyre portedstatisticsaswellassomebackgroundinformationthatcanchange theimplicationsofthesestatistics.Sometimes,nationalmeasurements arenotveryinformativeandcanevenbemisleading.Lookingatnation alversuslocalschooldatacanprovidesignificantinsights.Theissueof nationalversuslocalcontrolhighlightstheroleofschoolstructure,fin ancing,andincentives.Putdifferently,becausestatesandschooldistricts havedifferentconditionsandrespondindividuallytovaryingincentives, nationaldatadoesnotalwaysgiveareasonableandtruepicture.Look ingatalternativemeasures,nationalandlocal,providesmoreinforma tionandmorecompleteview.

References:

1. ABCNews.com (2006),ABCNews:QUIZ:WhatDoYouKnowAbout Public Education? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/popup?id=1504374 2. Ashenfelter,OrleyandAlanKrueger(1994),EstimatesoftheEconomic ReturntoSchoolingforaNewSampleofTwins, AmericanEconomic Review85(5),pp.115773.

3. Ashenfelter,OrleyandCeciliaRouse(1998),Income,Schooling,and Ability:EvidencefromaNewSampleofIdenticalTwins,TheQuarterly JournalofEconomics,Vol.113,No.1,pp.253284.

4. CollegeBoard(2006a),2006CollegeBoundSeniors:TotalGroupPro file Report, The College Board, http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2006/re ports.html 5. CollegeBoard(2006b),2006CollegeBoundSeniors:StateProfileRe portIllinois, The College Board, http://www.collegeboard.com/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2006/re ports.html 6. Correa,Macarena,JohnQ.Easton,OdisJohnson,StevePonisciak,and ToddRosenkranz(2004),SelectedIndicatorsfromtheU.S.Censusand ChicagoPublicSchoolsRecordsRelatedtotheLivesandSchoolingof Children,awebbasedreportfromtheConsortiumonChicagoSchool Research,May2004, http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/web_reports/Schoolageen vironment/index.html 7. Cutler,DavidandAndreaLlerasMuney(2006),EducationandHealth: Evaluating Theories and Evidence, NBER Working Paper #12352, www.nber.org.

8. Friedman, Milton (1955), The Role of Government in Education, Chapter 6 in Capitalism and Freedom, (1962);

downloadable at http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/.

9. Hanushek,Eric(1986),TheEconomicsofSchooling:Productionand Efficiency in Public Schools, JournalofEconomicLiterature 24(3), pp.114159.

10. Hoxby,CarolineM.(2002),WouldSchoolChoiceChangetheTeaching Profession? TheJournalofHumanResources,Vol.37,No.4,pp.846 891.

11. Hoxby,CarolineMinter(1996),AreEfficiencyandEquityinSchool FinanceSubstitutesorComplements?JournalofEconomicPerspectives 10(4),pp.5172.

12. Kane,ThomasandDouglasStaiger(2002),ThePromiseandPitfallsof UsingImpreciseSchoolAccountabilityMeasures,JournalofEconomic Perspectives16(4),pp.91114.

13. Kapadia,Kavita,andVanessaCoca;

withJohnQ.Easton(2007),Keep ingNewTeachers:AFirstLookattheInfluencesofInductioninthe Chicago Public Schools, Consortium on Chicago School Research, 1/2007.http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php 14. Ladd, Helen (2002), School Vouchers: A Critical View, Journalof EconomicPerspectives16(4),pp.324.

15. Neal,Derek(2002),HowVouchersCouldChangetheMarketforEdu cation,JournalofEconomicPerspectives16(4),pp.2544.

16. Ponisciak,Stephen(2005),UnderstandingthePrairieStateAchievement Exam: A Descriptive Report with Analysis of Student Performance, Consortium on Chicago School Research, 9/2005. http://ccsr.uchica go.edu/content/publications.php 17. Roderick, Melissa, Jenny Nagaoka, and Elaine Allensworth;

with VanessaCoca,MacarenaCorrea,andGingerStoker(2006),FromHigh SchooltotheFuture:AFirstLookatChicagoPublicSchoolGraduates' CollegeEnrollment,CollegePreparation,andGraduationfromFourYear Colleges,ConsortiumonChicagoSchoolResearch, 4/2006. http://cc sr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php 18. U.S.CensusBureau(2006) The2006StatisticalAbstractoftheUnited States, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/education/elementary_and_sec ondary_education_schools_and_enrollment/ 4. ..

, .

" "[http://www.raexpert.ru/ratings/regions/], ,, . ,, . , . .

1.

20052006 (2) (31) (32) ., : , , , [http://www.raexpert.ru/ratings/regions/]. , ., . ,, , , .

.,, [1]. :

;

;

;

.

. .200677,9% .   .2004 15198,0 . , 2006 20886,6..5688,6.,137% [1].

200622,1%, . [1].

().  Ϡ .2004 (37.5%), 2005 Ϡ(14%). ., Ϡ . 200573194,5[5].

200517642,4. [1]. Ϡ .

  , .

,,, , , .

,, , , .  , , 650, [4].

, .

:

1. (20012006).2007: // 蠖 , 2. .à蠖.:, 3. ..砖.:, 4. ....:, 5. ://www.gks.ru/bgd/free/b01_19/IssWWW.exe/Stg/d000/vrp9805.htm http 6. http://www.russia.polpred.ru/news.html?section=6&fo= 7. http ://www.raexpert.ru/ratings/regions/ .., ..., , . ( ) , .

. ,: , ;

;

⠖.. , .2006., , , .

. 25% ., , , .  , . , ,. ,堫 ໠ (,), . 堖 [1]., , , , , , . ,, . .  . 2006 c , , , . ., .   堭3,69 .. ( 3).

 12007 .1 2006:8,1);

10,7;

47,9;

23,4 ;

( )20 ;

.

. .

, . , , . Ԡ:

1.. (9,1 10,6 2. . (17231000). 3.(). (8,0100014,0). 4. (7,19,3). (30%). , ,帠 ,.

帠, . 1. , , . 2. , . 3. , .

:

1. . 8 2007 , // http://pravda. kur sknet .ru/news.php?article=3650 499( 2. www. rkursk.ru // .., .., :   , ( , , ). , ,., 12 , [1].

  . ,,, ,, , , 10000.  , [2]. .

:

1. . , , .

2.,( )( ).  .

3. ,. .

: , , , .  ( , ). , ,1 ,, .

, , , . , ,, .

:

1. '. .4.:.:,2002. 706.2,3,5.

2. Krugman,Paul.UrbanConcentration:TheRoleofIncreasingReturns andTransportCosts.InternationalRegionalScienceReview19(1996), pp.530;

3. Huang,J.C.,andP.Gould.DiffusioninanUrbanHierarchy:TheCase ofRotaryClubs.EconomicGeography50(1974),pp.333340;

4. Schmenner,RogerW.MakingBusinessLocationDecisions.Englewood, N.J.:PrenticeHall,1982;

5. Storper,Michael.TowardaStructuralTheoryofIndustrialLocation. In Industrial LocationandRegionalSystems,ed.JohnRees,Geoffrey J.D.Hewings,andHowardStafford.Brooklyn,N.Y.:Bergin,1981,pp. 1740.

.., .., ..., , .., ..., - : . ,Ϡ ,,/ ,.. . ,, ,,( ) . . .()( ) ,⠫軠.

, , [5]. ,, () ()/ ., ,. . . :


1);

2);

3)(). 100 100 . 30 ,, . [6].

. (..) (..,. .). . ,., .,.. . ,.,., .. / 1990, 1998, 2006. () ,, ,1990.,1998.2006., .

.  ,, (/) 1990,1998,2006.10 . ,堭. 2014. (, ,) (Ϡ) , ,( )() .

, (), .

:

1. Durlauf Steven N. On The Convergence and Divergence of Growth Rates//The Economic Journal Vol.106,No.437(Jul.,1996),pp.1016 1018 2. Errata:ComparativeSocialMobilityRevisited:ModelsofConvergence andDivergencein16Countries AmericanSociologicalReview Vol. 49,No.3(Jun.,1984) 3. Neumayer Eric.HIV/AIDSandCrossNationalConvergenceinLifeEx pectancy//PopulationandDevelopmentReviewVol.30,No.4(Dec., 2004),pp.727 4. Peacock Walter Gillis, Hoover Greg A., Killian Charles D.

DivergenceandConvergenceinInternationalDevelopment:ADecom positionAnalysisofInequalityintheWorldSystem//AmericanSociolo gicalReviewVol.53,No.6(Dec.,1988),pp.838 5. Baumol WilliamJ.,WolffEdwardN.ProductivityGrowth,Convergence, andWelfare:Reply//TheAmericanEconomicReviewVol.78,No.5 (Dec.,1988),pp.1155 6. http:// .wikipedia.org ru 5. , ..

. 蠭 , , . , . ,, .[1]  . , . , , , . [2] , , , .

.  , . TQMISO9000[3]. 80 , TQM. ,, (6%)(94%)[3]. ,, . . , ()[2].

Q̠, . Q,, , .Q̠ .Q̠ ,Q̠, ࠭ࠫ, .

,, ISO9000[3]. IS090001987,, ,1994. ( ). 400.[4]. 90ՠ , .   ISO 14000, ,[3].ӠISO9000 ,. , ꠭. Ѡ , ,, , [2]. , IS 9000 , ,, .

, ,ISO9000Q, . , ., , 堫廠 ,, . . , .


:

1. .. : . .2 ., ..:,2005..107.

2. . . //䠭2006.3.20.

3. .. 4 .,.:̭࠭2004..368 396.

4. .. // 2004.3. ..

..., ,. , 2005Ǡ94Π , , . Ǡ20731.122005,Ǡ142 27.07.2006,Ǡ5320.04.2007.Ѡ12007 Ǡ218242007, . , , . , , . , . , , , , , , , .

 .3 , , , , , ,, , , . , , , , .

, , ,, , .

, , ,, (, ) ,, .

. , () , ,.

, , , , , , . . , , , , . , , .

, ,, , , , , , 帠.

, , , . :

1) , ;

2) , ;

3) ,,;

4) , , .

.

. ,, , .

 , , (,) , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , ,.  ,, , .

, , , , .

, , () .

, , (,).(,) , ,, . (, ) (, ) . (, ), , .

08.08.2007 N 11812/04 , , ,, (, )21.07.2005 N 94 . , , , , ,, , , . , , , , , , . , , ,, , .

:

1) ;

2);

3) , , ;

4) , , ()().

. ,.

4. , , 325 235, , , , , , .

, , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , .

() ( ) , , () ( ) .

, , , , , , ,, , ,.

 :

1);

2);

3);

4), , ;

5);

6),;

7) , ( ), , , , , ( ) (,);

8).

, ,., 82, .

,, . .  , , (, ), . :



Pages:     | 1 || 3 |
 
 >>  ()





 
<<     |    
2013 www.libed.ru - -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .