With the collapse of the USSR in the ex-Soviet countries the problem of educational inequality became more acute. There is no unified position on the reasons for the aggravation of inequality in studies. On the one hand, the growth of inequality has been attributed to the conscious policy of ex-Soviet countries to abandon the Soviet legacy at any cost as a political signal of a break with the Soviet (interpreted as colonial) past (Fish, 1998). On the other hand, the reasons for inequality are seen as steps in ex-Soviet countries aimed at carrying out educational reforms within the framework of global educational changes to reach maximum integration into global trends (Saltman & Means, 2018).

Studies of changes in the education systems of the former USSR countries during the transit period highlight such common vectors as the shift from unification to variability, competitive environment, greater freedom of choice, individualisation [Poder et al., 2016], from centralisation to decentralisation, autonomy of schools, emergence of the non-state school sector [Silova, 2002].

While there are common features, the transformation of national education systems in the former Soviet Union countries had differences in the scenarios and dynamics determined by cultural, economic and political contexts. Today, it is generally accepted to reject "a linear conceptualisation of the 'transition' process, which is characterised by the gradual replacement of 'old' socialist policies, practices and values with 'new' Western ones, and to focus on the complexity of the transformation processes, in which the processes can take an unforeseen character, with trajectories leading to several destinations" (Silova 2009).

The research delves into the critical issue of inequality among schoolchildren in the former USSR countries. Our research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the nature and dynamics of the relationship between academic test results and inequality factors. 

In this research we tried to understand how do test scores correlate with common factors of inequality (such as race, gender, SES, and immigrant status) among schoolchildren in the former USSR countries? Whether the effects of inequality factors differ within Ex-Soviet countries and between ex-Soviet countries and the OECD countries?

The comparative study of the inequality in general education in the countries of the former USSR is an area of research that has remained relevant over the past decades, firstly, as part of the large-scale tradition of "transitology" (Cowen, 2000; Mitter, 2003) and, secondly, as a trends in the study of social systems transformation outcomes in a changed geopolitical context (Silova, 2009; Partlett & Küpper, 2022).

The discussion aims to unravel the multifaceted dimensions of educational inequality, providing insights for policymakers, educators, and researchers. By placing the former USSR countries within an international context, the findings can contribute to a broader understanding of global educational disparities. Ultimately, the goal is to foster dialogue on effective strategies for addressing inequality, taking into account the unique socio-political and historical context of the region.

Employing a quantitative design, the research utilizes PISA data from 2009-2018-2022 for students' outcomes assessment and contextual demographic, financial and educational parameters from national databases to understand the conditions in which national school sysmets were operating. Statistical analyses including t-tests and multilevel linear regression are used to establish connections between test scores and inequality factors. The use of PISA data allows for international benchmarks, offering a comparative perspective on the educational landscape within the former USSR countries against the backdrop of the OECD. Among the ex-Soviet countries, seven participated in the 2009 test: Moldova, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. In 2018, Belarus and Ukraine were added to this group, but for comparability, they are not taken into account. The comparison group with other OECD countries comprises 64 countries in both PISA waves. Countries not duplicated in both waves are excluded for result comparability. To enhance cross-country accuracy, an adjustment is made for the weighting factor provided in the PISA database . For the analysis, two PISA databases are integrated - student questionnaires with test results and school questionnaires filled in by principals. This connection is imperative to combine personal and institutional level data. For cross-country analysis, test scores are standardized, and the normal distribution of observations is confirmed for each country. The examination of inequality in results indicators employs two approaches: comparing results based on personal characteristic grouping (immigrant status, gender, rurality etc.) and analyzing country groupings - former Soviet Union countries and OECD countries, which include other PISA participant countries, excluding ex-Soviet nations. To analyze score differences we used t-test for independent samples. Statistically significant differences trigger an assessment of the mean value differences in standardized scores. Multilevel linear regression used with predictors on first - personal, second - school, and third - country levels. Personal factors are students’ SES, immigrant status, language at home, gender. School level factors are territorial affiliation, shortage of educators, availability of other schools in the territory share of teachers with higher education, type of school. The utilization of multilevel regression arises from the specific nature of PISA data.

The article concludes that territorial inequality in academic results within the former Soviet Union countries is distinctive. It observes that the performance gap between urban and rural students is higher and growing at a faster rate compared to the OECD country group. Factor of rural residence is significant as well as common factors of inequality - race, gender, SES, immigrant status - and it simultaneously influences the magnitude of the effect of these common factors depending on the territory. SES is significantly related to the level of scores in all three PISA subjects in both FSU and OECD countries. The use of a language other than the testing language in the family is associated with lower scores. In the ex-Soviet countries, the association between language and test scores decreases and the effect of the factor is minimal. The gender of the student is significantly related to the level of scores. The association between gender and scores is lower in ex-Soviet countries than in OECD countries, although the effect of the factor is minimal. Gender weakly explains test scores. The rurality factor is significantly related to test scores, determining lower scores for rural students. The correlation between being rural and scores changes depending on the country group - in the former USSR countries this correlation is sharply strengthened. The rurality factor, controlling for other variables, remains significant. Moreover, the effects of the considered inequality factors differ significantly depending on territoriality.

Cowen, R. (2000). Comparing futures or comparing pasts?. Comparative Education, 36(3), 333-342. Mitter, W. (2003). A decade of transformation: Education policies in Central and Eastern Europe. In M. Bray (Ed.), Comparative Education: Continuing Traditions, New Challenges, and New Paradigms. London: Kluwer Silova, I. (2009). Varieties of Educational Transformation: The Post-Socialist States of Central/Southeastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. In: Cowen, R., Kazamias, A.M. (eds) International Handbook of Comparative Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 22. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6403-6_19 Partlett, W., & Küpper, H. (2022). The Post-Soviet as Post-Colonial: A New Paradigm for Understanding Constitutional Dynamics in the Former Soviet Empire. Edward Elgar Publishing. Elgar Monographs in Constitutional and Administrative Law. ISBN 1802209441, 9781802209440. Poder, K., Lauri, T., Ivaniushina, V., Alexandrov, D. (2016). Family Background and School Choice in Cities of Russia and Estonia: Selective Agenda of the Soviet Past and Present. Studies of Transition States and Societies, 8(3). 5-28. Silova, I. (2002). Returning to Europe: Facts, fiction, and fantasies of post-Soviet education reform. In A. Nóvoa & M. Lawn (Eds.), Fabricating Europe: The Formation of an Educational Space (pp. 87–109). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Fish M. S. (1998) Democratization's requisites: the postcommunist experience //Post-Soviet Affairs. №. 14 (3). p. 212-247. Saltman, K., & Means, A. (2018). The Wiley Handbook of Global Educational Reform. An International Handbook of Educational Reform. 10.1002/9781119082316.