This study is the last stage of a project aimed at developing methods and instruments to identify schools with poor academic results operating in difficult social contexts that need help transitioning to a more effective mode of operation.

This gives all types of students the opportunity to receive a quality education and reduces the number of schools that do not offer a satisfactory level of education.

The study employed a set of contextual indicators that were most closely associated with a school’s academic achievements. Algorithms were developed to group schools based on their contextual characteristics to assess their performance. The information base for the study was comprised of the set of data provided by educational monitoring centers on more than 1,000 educational institutions in two Russian regions. The analysis was focused on school context in three areas:

·       Characteristics of students’ families.

·       Characteristics of students’ parents.

·       Characteristics of special needs students.

The analysis included the following steps:

·                 Identifying the various differences between educational institutions based on several contextual indicators, including the availability of resources and social background.

·                 Clustering schools based on stable contextual characteristics and identifying clusters of schools with the most and least favorable social characteristics.

·                 Defining within the clusters groups of schools that showed strong and poor academic results.

·                 Defining the most and least effective educational institutions from this data set.

The theoretical basis for this research was the theory of reproductive functioning of education and cultural capital (P. Bourdieu).

Schools operating in difficult social contexts are considered in accordance with the model “Schools in Exceptionally Challenging Circumstances” (Harris, Hopkins, et al).

The concept of “effective” schools is based on the model of P. Mortimor.

1.Borjias, G. 1995. Etnicity, neighborhoods, and Human-Capital Externalities. American Economic Review 85, 365-390. 2.Coleman, J. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 3.Eliot A. Jamison & Dean T. Jamison & Eric A. Hanushek, 2006. "The Effects of Education Quality on Income Growth and Mortality Decline," NBER Working Papers 12652, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. 4.Eric A. Hanushek & Ludger Woessmann, 2008. "The Role of Cognitive Skills in Economic Development," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(3), pages 607-68. 5. Harris, A and Chapman, C (2004) Towards differentiated improvement for schools in challenging circumstances, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 6.B.A.Jacob, J.Ludwig. Improving Educational Outcomes for Poor Children. CLOSUP Paper Series, # 13, 2009. 7.Levin H., 1977 A decade of policy developments in improving education and training for low-income population. N-Y: Academic Press 8.Lamont, M. and Lareau, A. (1988) ‘Cultural capital: Allussions, gaps and glissandos’. Sociological Theory 6 153-168 9.Measuring improvements in learning outcomes. OECD, 2008. 10.OECD (2007 c). No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in education. Paris:OECD. 11.M.A. Pinskaya, S.G. Kosaretsky, I.D. Frumin . Schools that operate effectively in difficult social contexts . Voprosy Obrazovaniya, №4, 2011. с.148-178. 12.Reynolds, D., Hopkins, D., Potter, D., & Chapman, C. (2001). School Improvement for Schools Facing Challenging Circumstances: A Review of Research and Practice. London: 13.Department for Education and Skills. 14.Whitty, G., & Mortimore, P. (1997). Can School Improvement Overcome the Effects of Social Disadvantage? London Institute of Education