The topic of inequality today occupies a central place in the educational policy of modern states and the education research agenda (Kurakin, 2020). The issue of equality in educational opportunities is not only a matter of morality and justice but is also largely a matter of the economic well-being of countries (Yang & Qiu, 2016). Ensuring equal access to education for all children, regardless of the social, economic and cultural level of their families, is seen as a key task of education in the modern world[1]. The issues of equality of educational opportunities are relevant in the context of the post-Soviet transition, which exacerbated the problem of social stratification during the period of institutional turbulence (Kosaretsky, Grunicheva, et al., 2016)

Studies have found that children from low-income and less educated families are less involved in extracurricular activities (Bennett et al., 2012). By engaging in such activities, they are more likely to participate in school-based programs, and their peers from families with an average income are more involved in the activities outside of school, and their choice is not determined by the territorial factor (Kosaretsky, Kupriyanov, et al., 2016). The potential of extracurricular education in overcoming social inequalities is also considered in the context of its impact on school performance and dropout, socialization of schoolchildren, development of social skills (Eccles & Roeser, 2011).

At the same time, the features of the formation and manifestation of inequality in extracurricular education are not fully known. Little has been studied about its connection with the structure, regulation, and transformation of the national sectors of extracurricular education. Meanwhile, these studies have a two-sided value, allowing, on the one hand, to see a significant, but often hidden part of educational inequality, and, on the other hand, to use the knowledge gained to better understand the transition processes in post-Soviet countries in the context of the development and education of children (Chankseliani, 2017).

We use the term "extracurricular education" to level out the peculiarities of the definitions of relevant practices in different countries. By extracurricular activities, we mean activities that are not mandatory in accordance with state educational standards, are not included (in terms of content) in the school curriculum. We do not consider tutoring. We view inequality in extracurricular education at the country level primarily as differences in access to services and enrollment. Because data in the extracurricular education sectors are collected to a lesser extent and are country-specific, cross-country comparisons are only available for the core variables.

In our work, for the first time, the problem of inequality in the sector of extracurricular education in the post-Soviet space is considered. We want to study what changes have taken place in the system of extracurricular education as part of the transition from the Soviet model to the current situation with extracurricular education. We are interested in changes in coverage, content, inclusiveness, services, fees, inequality, etc. Characterizing and studying these processes through the prism of educational inequality will improve our understanding of how educational systems, and especially the sector of extracurricular education, should be built. Understanding the processes and differences in them, depending on the path chosen by a particular country after the collapse of the USSR, can become a key to solving the most pressing issues of educational inequality. We believe that future research will have great scientific potential, in which the balance of marketability and “sociality” of the extracurricular sector will be the subject of study.

[1] https://en.unesco.org/node/265600

Our analysis covers all 15 countries of the former Soviet Union. We rely on a significant array of data obtained from various sources: legislative documents, national statistics of organizations for extracurricular education for children, expert interviews with leading experts in the national sectors of extracurricular education. At the same time, we critically assess the lack of data and limited opportunities for comparative analysis and discuss the prospects for the development of a system of comparative studies of inequality in extracurricular education. We analyze the statistical collections of the Soviet period, published by the State Statistics Committee of the USSR and the republican committees of statistics in 1988-1990. We also use data from national statistics in the field of extracurricular education, data from departmental statistics - unpublished sources from ministries, departments of education and science of the countries of the former USSR. For a number of parameters, a cumulative assessment is used, including limited statistical data and expert opinion. In some countries, such as Georgia and Turkmenistan, only expert estimates are given for a number of indicators. To supplement these data, we conducted 57 unstructured and structured interviews with experts in the field of extracurricular education — heads and deputies of national centers for children's extracurricular education, heads of extracurricular education organizations, including the private sector, as well as experts and researchers in school and extracurricular education. For the analysis of normative documents and national policies, we used: the texts of Constitutions, laws on education, laws on children's rights, family codes, as well as national strategies and concepts for the development of education, extracurricular education and / or upbringing. To systematize and analyze this data, we used elements of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), which allows us to capture and compare existing results and trends in a complex configuration of elements of the once unified Soviet system of extracurricular education (Cilesiz & Greckhamer, 2020). The study of the transformation of the Soviet model of extracurricular education is based on the methods of morphological (Ritchey, 2011) and institutional analysis (Benavot, 1997), which provide tools for a generalized view of the system of extracurricular education, which is a set of loosely coupled organizations. We analyzed and systematized interviews and other data using QCA and partly IAD (Polski & Ostrom, 1999), created country profiles, which formed the basis of our comparative study.

• The main discussion is built around the following conclusions: • After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a serious decline in coverage due to socio-economic factors. Reducing budget revenues, inflation and the economic crisis lead to a reduction in the network of extracurricular education organizations and a crisis in the infrastructure of the sector, which was a significant part of the Soviet model of organized out-of-school time for children. • The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent transformation of the Soviet model of extracurricular work is an excellent illustration of the path-dependence patterns that characterize the post-communist transition (Knight & North, 1997). This gives rise to an additional perspective of studying the content of the extracurricular education sector – the processes of transformation after the common ideology and unified model ceased to exist. • Territorial and financial accessibility were a key element of the Soviet model, where all classes, with the exception of music schools, were free. The collapse of the USSR led to the fact that budget spending on extracurricular networks was subjected to the greatest reduction. However, against the backdrop of a decrease in overall accessibility, there is an increase in inclusion in relation to certain groups of children that were previously underrepresented. • Thus, the main conclusion for discussion is a non-trivial contradiction: on the one hand, the coverage and overall accessibility of extracurricular education is now on average lower than it was in the USSR, but at the same time, inclusiveness and serviceability have become higher. This issue is considered both from the general standpoint of differences in the customer orientation of various economic formations, and from more specific ideological differences between the late USSR and the modern countries of the post-Soviet bloc.

Benavot, A. (1997). Institutional Approach to the Study of Education (p. Pages 340-345). Bennett, P. R., Lutz, A. C., & Jayaram, L. (2012). Beyond the Schoolyard: The Role of Parenting Logics, Financial Resources, and Social Institutions in the Social Class Gap in Structured Activity Participation. Sociology of Education, 85(2), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711431585 Chankseliani, M. (2017). Charting the development of knowledge on Soviet and post-Soviet education through the pages of comparative and international education journals. Comparative Education, 53(2), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2017.1293407 Cilesiz, S., & Greckhamer, T. (2020). Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Education Research: Its Current Status and Future Potential. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 332–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20907347 Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as Developmental Contexts During Adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x Knight, J., & North, D. (1997). Explaining Economic Change: The Interplay Between Cognition and Institutions. Legal Theory, 3(3), 211–226. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S1352325200000768 Kosaretsky, S., Grunicheva, I., & Goshin, M. (2016). Russian Educational Policy of the Late 1980s—Early 2000s: Declarations and the Actual Impact on Inequality in General Education. Universe of Russia, 25(4 SE-EDUCATIONAL ISSUES). https://mirros.hse.ru/article/view/4889 Kosaretsky, S., Kupriyanov, B., & Filippova, D. (2016).

Specific Features of Children Involvement in Supplementary Education Depending on Cultural, Educational and Financial Status of Families and Place of Living