The contemporary "Age of Uncertainty” requires the ability to respond effectively to global challenges, such as climate change, economic instability and inequality, human rights violations, military-political conflicts, and pandemics, and others. In this context, the task of the formation of agency, that is, the ability to act and transform the surrounding reality, to make decisions and take initiative in various contexts and spheres of public and personal life without external control or support is becoming increasingly important for education systems (Manyukhina, 2022; Sorokin & Froumin, 2022).

Agency is defined as the ability of an individual to act, exercising control over his/her life, the ability to set and achieve goals (Cavazzoni et al., 2021), proactively influence the environment, including the transformation of existing and the creation of new forms of interaction in various spheres of public life (Udehn, 2002). Agency is expressed in the ability to be an active participant, guiding and shaping one's life path (Schoon & Cook, 2021). It also implies the optimization of resources, overcoming or transforming constraints on the way to achieve self-set goals (Zimmerman & Ceary, 2006), both in individual subjective reality and in objective social reality. The variety of approaches to the definition of agency and the difficulties in unifying the methodology for measuring this construct are primarily due to its multidimensional (umbrella) character (Schoon & Cook, 2021; Schoon & Неckhausen, 2019).

Education is extremely important from the point of view of the agency formation. The construct of agency is based on two components (Cavazzoni et al., 2021; Abebe, 2019; Veronese et al., 2019): personal characteristics ("self-efficacy", "personal autonomy", "optimism”, “self-esteem”, "internal locus of control"), and  structural capabilities (socio-economic conditions, the territory of residence, the role of family, and the formal requirements of the institutions). This idea helps to understand the role of education in the formation of appropriate qualities and skills of schoolchildren in the learning process (Manyukhina, 2022). It is noted that institutional and pedagogical practices can contribute either to the expansion or limitation of the manifestation of agency (Ruscoe et al., 2018; Sirkko et al., 2019; Kirby, 2019).

At the same time, educational practices that are implemented outside strictly formal school education, including the participation of schoolchildren in extracurricular activities and private lessons, can acquire special importance from the point of view of the formation of proactive behavior. A number of studies have shown that extracurricular activities make a significant contribution to the formation of such qualities as perseverance, independence, self-confidence, creativity, and social activity (Baker, 2008; Durlak, Weissberg, Pachan, 2010; Baharom et al., 2017). The students who study privately tend to practice longer, "smarter," and more efficiently as they establish practice objectives, maximize time and concentration through shorter but generally more productive practice segments (Hamann, Frost, 2000).

At present, literature lacks tools for assessing agency of children and adolescents comprehensively, in various spheres of manifestation (Sorokin, Froumin, 2022; Cavazzoni, 2021).  Also, there are no general models allowing to correlate different types and levels of children’s agency with individual and structural factors, including educational practices.

The purpose of this study was to search for predictors of schoolchildren’s agency at the individual and school levels.

Research questions:

- What are the individual characteristics of students (gender, age, socioeconomic status, parental level of education, participation in private lessons, and extracurricular activities) are significant predictors of the agency level?

- What significant predictors of agency level can be found at the school level (number of students, number of young teachers, proportion of students with low/high socioeconomic status, and others)?

- How does the significance of these predictors change when they interact with each other?

The data were obtained as a result of the survey of students in grades 4 to 8 (N = 4,603; Mage = 12.4, SD = 1.46; 49.7% female) conducted in 2022 in Yaroslavl, Russia. The population of Yaroslavl is about 600,000 people. The sample is representative of urban schools: a random stratified selection of schools was carried out, taking into account their size as a characteristic of the socio-economic status of an educational organization. A total of 31 schools were selected for the study. Among the study participants, 48.6% noted that the mother or stepmother has tertiary education, and 31.26% of the respondents have both parents with tertiary education. Next, 37.8% of the respondents have a father or stepfather with tertiary education. At the same time, 0.8% of the respondents noted that they do not have "this parent – mother or stepmother," and 5.8% of the respondents – "there is no parent – father or stepfather." Thus, it can be argued that the vast majority of the study participants live in full families, and 48.8% of the respondents live with a brother or sister. More than half of the respondents (65%) attend some extracurricular activities. Slightly more than a quarter of schoolchildren (28.7%) take private lessons. The questionnaires had special section aimed at assessing proactive behavior (agency). In particular, the respondents were asked whether their parents participated in choosing of extracurricular activities (or the decision was made solely by a child him- or herself), whether they tend to take the initiative and make decisions about everyday activities in the company of peers, how the decisions are made about joint activities with parents, and where from they obtain most of the money for their personal expenses (for instance, do they have a paid working experience). The respondents' responses for each category were ranked and as a result, a total integral indicator (agency index) was calculated, i.e., the level of agency for each respondent. Finally, the linear mixed regression model predicting the agency Index was built. The model encompassed both individual and school-level predictors and their interactions.

At the individual level, several predictors were found to be significant. Age positively predicted the Agency Index (B = 0.11, SE = 0.01, p < .001), meaning that as the age of the participants increased, their agency index scores also tended to be higher. Parents’ educational level, particularly the mother’s, was also a significant predictor of the Agency Index (B = 0.08, SE = 0.04, p = .033). Participation in private lessons (PL) and extracurricular activities (PEA) both were associated with a higher Agency Index (PL: B = 0.38, SE = 0.05, p < .001; PEA: B = 0.79, SE = 0.04, p < .001). However the students who took private lessons and also participated in extracurricular activities had a slightly lower Agency Index compared to those who only participated in extracurricular activities. At the school level, the number of young teachers was a significant predictor (B = 0.04, SE = 0.01, p < .001), suggesting that schools with more young teachers tend to have students with higher agency index scores. Other school-level predictors were not statistically significant. Cross-level interaction effects revealed a significant interaction between participation in extracurricular activities and the number of young teachers (PEA × Number of young teachers: B = -0.05, SE = 0.01, p < .001), indicating that the positive effect of extracurricular activities on the Agency Index decreased as the number of young teachers in a school increased. That is, schools with more young teachers had a reduced benefit of extracurricular activities for the Agency Index, whereas those with fewer young teachers had a more pronounced benefit. However, the Agency Index appears to be mainly an individual-level phenomenon, with only a minor portion of its variance being explained by differences between schools. In more detail the results will be presented on the Conference.

Baharom M. N., Sharfuddin M., Iqbal J. (2017) A Systematic Review on the Deviant Workplace Behavior. Review of Public Administration and Management, 5(3), 1–8. Baker C. N. (2008) Under-Represented College Students and Extracurricular Involvement: The Effects of Various Student Organizations on Academic Performance. Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 273-298. Cavazzoni, F., Fiorini, A., & Veronese, G. (2021). How Do We Assess How Agentic We Are? A Literature Review of Existing Instruments to Evaluate and Measure Individuals' Agency. Social Indicators Research, 159(3), 1125-1153. Durlak J. A., Weissberg R. P., Pachan M. (2010) A Meta-Analysis of After-School Programs that Seek to Promote Personal and Social Skills in Children and Adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3). P. 294-309. Hamann D.L., & Frost, R.S. (2000). The Effect of Private Lesson Study on the Practice Habits and Attitudes Towards Practicing of Middle School and High School String Students. Contributions to Music Education, 27(2), 71–93. Kirby, P. (2019). Children’s agency in the modern primary classroom. Children & Society, 34(1), 17–30. Manyukhina, Y. (2022). Children’s agency in the National Curriculum for England: a critical discourse analysis. Education 3-13, 50, 506–520. Ruscoe, A., L. Barblett, and C. Parrath-Pugh. (2018). Sharing power with children: repositioning children as agentic learners. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(3), 63–71. Schoon, I., & Cook, R. (2021). Can individual agency compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting tertiary educational attainment among males and females. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(3), 408–422. Schoon, I., & Heckhausen, J. (2019). Conceptualizing individual agency in the transition from school to work: a socio-ecological developmental perspective. Adolescent Research Review, 4(4), 135–148. Sirkko, R., Kyrönlampi, T., and Puroila, A. M. 2019. Children’s agency: opportunities and constraints. International Journal of Early Childhood, 51(3), 283–300. Sorokin P. S., Froumin I. D. (2022) Education As a Source for Transformative Agency: Theoretical and Practical Issues. Voprosy Obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, 1, 116-137. Udehn L. (2002) The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 479–507. Veronese, G., Pepe, A., Cavazzoni, F., Obaid, H., & Perez, J. (2019). Agency via life satisfaction as a protective factor from cumulative trauma and emotional distress among bedouin children in Palestine. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1674. Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and Education (Vol. 5): Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 45-69.