Information and analytical materials for the monitoring of universities. Monitoring the quality of university admissions. Distribution of universities by quality of admission

AT Russian Federation monitoring the performance of higher educational institutions is carried out as part of the monitoring of the entire education system, which is carried out on the basis of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 662 of August 5, 2013 “on monitoring the education system”.

According to the above decision, the monitoring of the education system has the following goals:

information support, development and implementation public policy Russian Federation in the field of education
continuous analysis and assessment of the state of education and the prospects for its development
performance improvement educational system by improving the quality of management decisions made for it
detection of violations of legislation in the field of education

Monitoring of the education system includes the collection of information, its processing, systematization and storage, as well as continuous system analysis of the state of the education system. At the same time, on the basis of the data obtained, it is possible to determine the prospects for the development of education.

Organization of monitoring is carried out:

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science
Federal state bodies that have in their jurisdiction organizations engaged in educational activities
Executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation exercising public administration in the field of education
bodies local government responsible for management in the field of education.

“Indicators for monitoring the education system and the methodology for their calculation are determined by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in accordance with the list of mandatory information on the education system subject to monitoring, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated August 5, 2013 No. 662” .

The issue of the need to check the quality of education in universities has been raised in society for a very long time. So, back in 2004, Professor I.M. Ilyinsky as "one of the biggest secrets of today's Russia is the quality of the work of state universities", in some cases which, in his opinion, it is unacceptably low.

However, concrete steps to resolve the problem of the quality of education have begun to be carried out relatively recently. Thus, in May 2012, Vladimir Putin signed a decree "On measures to implement state policy in the field of education and science", where one of the instructions to the Government of the Russian Federation was to monitor the activities of state educational institutions by the end of 2012 in order to assess the effectiveness of their work, reorganization of inefficient public educational institutions. In July 2012, Dmitry Livanov (from May 21, 2012 to August 19, 2016 - Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation) stated that "the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation is planning to three years reduce the number of state higher educational institutions by 20% and their branches by 30%” . A little later, Alexander Klimov (from June 14, 2012 to September 13, 2016 - Deputy Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation) noted that "if a university or branch is on the list of universities with signs of inefficiency, this is not a sentence." “For some, this, on the contrary, can become a road to strengthening, and the transition to a new, more high level educational activities» .

As a result, from August 15 to September 15, 2012, the first monitoring of the effectiveness of the activities of universities took place in Russia. 541 institutions took part in it higher education, and 994 of their branches. In October-November of the same year, a part of non-state universities also passed the monitoring. "The results of the monitoring shocked society and were heatedly discussed for a long time". Yes, among state universities 27% were found to be ineffective. However, at the same time, they also spoke about the imperfection of the criteria for checking the effectiveness of higher educational institutions: for example, such an indicator as “infrastructure”, when, at a rate of 11 m discredited itself, since it is the state that should allocate money for the construction of the missing meters. But for non-state universities, such an indicator as “infrastructure” turned out to be very indicative, since non-compliance with established standards may indicate the indifference of the founders of the university to the conditions of education of their students. In addition, “lack of own space, dependence on landlords is the main factor of instability and risk for the university, which reduces the confidence of applicants in it” . There were also many questions on such a criterion as “educational activity”, where the key indicator was GPA The USE, which depends to a greater extent on the quality of the work of the school, and in no way depends on the work of the university. And finally, another drawback of the first monitoring is that “ strong universities' did not take part. According to Professor I.M. Ilyinsky, the main reason for this is the poor organization of affairs by the leadership of the Association of Non-State Higher Educational Institutions, which was instructed to carry out monitoring work on a national scale.

Be that as it may, some errors of the first monitoring were taken into account, and on August 15, 2013, the second stage of monitoring the effectiveness of universities was launched. It was attended by 1054 universities, of which 480 were non-state. The main differences from the first stage of monitoring are:

both state universities and non-state universities participated in the monitoring on a mandatory basis
monitoring was carried out on all those indicators as in 2012 (educational activity, research activity, international activity, financial and economic activity, infrastructure), plus such a criterion was added as employment
groups of universities with specific characteristics (military, creative, transport, medical, agricultural) were identified, which were evaluated by additional indicators

If the university achieved the values of at least three indicators, then it was recognized as effective. According to the monitoring results, "signs of inefficiency were found in 18.4% of state universities and 35% of non-state ones" .

In 2014, the third monitoring was carried out, in which 968 universities and 1356 branches took part. The main changes compared to previous years are:

in contrast to 2013, additional indicators have become common both for assessing the effectiveness of universities and for assessing the effectiveness of their branches
Threshold values of university performance criteria have changed
at the same time, monitoring was carried out according to all the same criteria as in 2013, only such a criterion was added as reduced student population
“in accordance with the decision of the interdepartmental commission for monitoring the effectiveness educational organizations of higher education dated February 18, 2014, when assessing the activities of educational organizations and their branches, the terms signs of inefficiency and inefficient university, as bearing significant reputational risks.

In June 2014, an interdepartmental commission compiled a list of organizations that achieved less than four out of seven performance indicators. It included 1,006 higher education organizations, including 17 universities and 477 branches more or less owned by the state, and 159 private universities, as well as 283 branches of non-state universities. As a result, the founders of educational organizations included in this list were recommended to take measures to improve the efficiency of their universities.

In 2015, the fourth monitoring took place, which covered "all organizations of higher education" . Among the main innovations are:

accounting for the actual employment of graduates, which was carried out on the basis of data from the pension fund on deductions by employers of the relevant contributions
an indicator of the average salary of faculty members was introduced as a new performance criterion
when making decisions on the effectiveness of the activities of universities, they no longer take into account the indicator characterizing the infrastructure

Of the 900 universities that took part in the monitoring, it turned out that 57 achieved less than four indicators, and most of them (32) are non-state. Among the branches, the indicators were much worse. Thus, among 1232 branches, 142 branches met less than four indicators, and, surprisingly, most of them (134) are state-owned. As a result, the Ministry of Education decided to “send a list of higher educational organizations and branches that have achieved less than 4 performance indicators to Rosobrnadzor for inclusion in the action plan for state control in the field of education.

In 2016, the next, fifth in a row, monitoring of the effectiveness of universities was carried out. As for the process of organizing monitoring, compared with previous years, serious changes have occurred only in relation to the criterion employment, where the interdepartmental commission unanimously supported the proposal of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science to detail the provision of information obtained as part of a study of the employment of graduates, conducted on the basis of data from the pension fund and Rosobrnadzor. According to the data of the Main Information and Computing Center, 830 universities and 932 branches took part in the monitoring. “Among state universities, 11 organizations were recognized as ineffective. Also, 199 branches of state universities, 81 private universities and 156 branches of non-state universities were recognized as ineffective.

The latest monitoring of the effectiveness of the activities of universities took place in 2017. The following changes have been made to the procedure for the monitoring process compared to previous years:

the threshold value of the indicator of employment is brought into line with the calculated average value of this indicator in 2016
indicator threshold is set wage at the level of 150% of the average salary in the subject of the Russian Federation

770 state, non-state, municipal, and regional educational organizations of higher education and 691 branches of educational organizations of higher education took part in the monitoring. Of the universities, 664 institutions fulfilled four or more indicators, and among the branches - 483.

Summing up the overall results of monitoring the effectiveness of universities, we can say that the aspirations of the previous leadership of the Ministry of Education regarding the reduction in the number of universities in the country were generally achieved. So “from 2014 to 2017, the number of branches and universities decreased by 1097 institutions (in 2014 there were 2268 institutions of higher education). At the same time, the reduction affected branches the most, and the number of state-owned branches almost halved (from 908 to 428), and among non-state branches, about 80% of branches were closed (as of January 2018, out of 422 private branches of previously operating branches, only 81 remained in the education system) » .

If we talk about future prospects for monitoring the activities of universities, they, first of all, can relate to its content and organization. Thus, it can be seen that over the 6 years of monitoring the effectiveness of the activities of universities, such a most important criterion as the quality of graduate training. As for the sphere of organization of the monitoring process, it is assumed here that all universities, as a result of the next stage of monitoring, will fall into one of four categories according to the level of risk, in accordance with the violations identified during the audit. Based on these data, further reviews will be carried out for those universities where the risks are the highest, which will most likely lead, firstly, to “saving nerves” for universities with a good reputation, and secondly, to a further reduction in the number of poorly performing universities, and, accordingly, to improve the general level of education in the country.

Bibliography:

On the implementation of the process of monitoring the education system: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 5, 2012 No. 662: entered into force on September 1, 2013 // Ros. gas. - 2013. - August 19.
Ilyinsky I. M. Non-state universities in Russia: the experience of self-identification. M.: Publishing house mos. gum. university. - 2000. - 354 p.
The number of state universities by 2015 will be reduced by 20%. URL: https://www.rbc.ru/society/10/07/2012/5703fa5c9a7947ac81a69f3f (Date of access: 04/01/2018)
Shooting list. URL: http://expert.ru/2012/11/1/rasstrelnyij-spisok/ (date of access: 04/02/2018)
The Ministry of Education and Science has revealed signs of inefficiency in the work of 40 universities of the Central Federal District. URL: https://ria.ru/education/20121101/908529361.html (date of access: 04/01/2018)
Ilyinsky I.M. On the effectiveness of university monitoring // Education and educated person in the 21st century. - 2013. - No. 2. - P.3 -9.
The results of monitoring the effectiveness of universities have been officially published. URL: https://lenta.ru/news/2013/11/08/official/ (date of access: 04/07/2018)
On monitoring the activities of educational institutions of higher education. URL: http://government.ru/orders/selection/405/17013/ (accessed 04/05/2018)
Universities that can teach: what you need to know about performance monitoring. URL: http://tass.ru/obschestvo/3445117 (date of access: 04/07/2018)
The results of monitoring the effectiveness of universities in 2015 have been summed up. URL: https://minobrnauki.rf/news/6923 (date of access: 04/05/2018)
In Russia, half of the universities were expelled. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3540086 (date of access: 04/08/2018)

We invite you to familiarize yourself with the results of the regular monitoring of the effectiveness of Russian universities, which was conducted by the Ministry of Education and Science on the basis of data provided by educational organizations.

Education system monitoring- a universal means of control, systematization and development of a constructive line of development in one of the most important sectors of the development of society and the state.

In addition, the research results allow future students to judge the quality of education in a particular university, its prestige and the possibility of obtaining best knowledge that will really become useful in professional activities.

Why is monitoring needed?

Development and improvement, raising education to a new, higher level is the main goal of regular monitoring the effectiveness of universities.

Monitoring studies show:

the quality of the work of the teaching staff, as well as the degree of assimilation of the program material by students;
consistency, goals and objectives of training, methods of presenting the material. The use of technical teaching aids and knowledge control significantly simplify the educational process and help to rationally spend the student's and teacher's time allotted for study;
structure and forms that make it possible to gain knowledge in optimal conditions. Monitoring statistics reflect the number of specialized universities in each region, stationary and correspondence forms of education, as well as material conditions created for independent educational and scientific activities;
the effectiveness of the educational process, which is displayed in the data on the employment of graduates in the specialty.

Monitoring includes a number of other assessment items related to control and educational process management. The regulation of budgetary funds allocated to improve the quality of higher education is also based on the results of research.

It should be noted that compared to last year's research results, the number of universities that improved their results in four or more indicators increased by 2.5 times. That is, monitoring proves its effectiveness and positive impact on improving the quality of education.

Key performance indicators of universities

The 2017 study involved 769 universities and 692 branches of educational organizations of various forms of ownership (state, municipal and private).

The effectiveness of universities was evaluated on the basis of indicators characterizing:

Educational activity - average USE score;
Research activity - the volume of research and development work per employee;
International activities - the percentage of foreign students to the total number of students;
Financial and economic activity - income of an educational organization per employee;
Salary of the teaching staff - the percentage ratio of the salary of employees to the average salary in the region;
Employment - the percentage of graduates who were employed in the year following graduation, to the total number of graduates;
Additional indicators - the share of student-athletes, the share of employees with state awards, the share of students in advanced training programs and professional retraining etc.

Main indicators of monitoring by districts

Universities of all branches of industry, located in eight federal districts and almost in all regional centers of the Russian Federation, took part in the last monitoring.

Central District

438 higher education organizations (including 156 branches) took part in the monitoring. 49 universities were able to achieve the required values for all 7 indicators, including:

Northwestern District

152 higher education organizations (including 60 branches) took part in the monitoring. 20 universities were able to achieve the required values for all 7 indicators, including:

Privolzhsky District

273 higher education organizations (including 155 branches) took part in the monitoring. 40 universities were able to achieve the required values for all 7 indicators, including:

Southern District

151 higher education organizations (including 92 branches) took part in the monitoring. 16 universities were able to achieve the required values for all 7 indicators, including:

North Caucasian District

95 organizations of higher education (including 50 branches) took part in the monitoring. Only 2 universities were able to achieve the required values for all 7 indicators, namely:

Vladikavkaz branch Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.

Ural District

112 higher education organizations (including 59 branches) took part in the monitoring. 12 universities were able to achieve the required values for all 7 indicators, including.

The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation published a monitoring report Russian universities in terms of their effectiveness.

Monitoring results are presented for 502 state universities and 930 university branches.

Earlier, Deputy Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Alexander Klimov said: "If a university or branch is included in the list of universities with signs of inefficiency, this does not mean that it will be closed. There are many options for solving the problem: from strengthening to joining another university."

Download the full list of efficient and inefficient universities in all regions of Russia:
Final list: .

1. Educational activity: average score USE students taken by USE results for full-time education under bachelor and specialist training programs at the expense of the relevant budgets of the budget system of the Russian Federation or with payment of the cost of training costs by individuals and legal entities (weighted average);

2. Research activities: the volume of R&D per one faculty member;

3. International activities: the share of the number of foreign students who have completed the development of the BEP of HPE in the total graduation of students (adjusted contingent);

4. Financial and economic activity: university income from all sources per one faculty member;

5. Infrastructure: the total area of educational and laboratory buildings per student (reduced contingent), which are owned by the university and assigned to the university by the right of operational management.

Key indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of the activities of branches (in addition to the five indicators for evaluating universities):

6. The given contingent;

7. The share of candidates and doctors of sciences in the number of teaching staff (without part-time jobs and those working under civil law contracts);

8. The share of teaching staff employees (without part-time jobs and working under civil law contracts) in the total number of teaching staff.

"For the first time we have conducted a full-scale diagnosis of the quality of higher education. Nothing like this has happened before. It is important that all universities have been assessed according to uniform and understandable criteria. Now we have a complete set of data on the quality of education in each branch, university, region. These data should become a signal for further work," said Dmitry Livanov, Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

universities

1. State Musical and Pedagogical Institute named after M.M. Ippolitova-Ivanova
2. State Specialized Institute of Arts
3. State University for land management
4. State University of Management
5. Literary Institute named after A.M. Gorky
6. Moscow State Academy of Water Transport
7. Moscow architectural institute(state academy)
8. Moscow State Agroengineering University named after V.P. Goryachkin
9. Moscow State Evening Metallurgical Institute
10. Moscow State Humanitarian and Economic Institute
11. Moscow State Open University
12. Moscow State Technical University"MAMI"
13. Moscow State University of Design and Technology
14. Moscow State University of Environmental Engineering
15. Moscow State University of Technology and Management
16. Moscow Pedagogical State University
17. Russian State humanitarian University
18. Russian State Social University
19. Russian State Trade and Economic University
20. Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher vocational education Moscow State University of Printing Arts named after Ivan Fedorov

Branches

1. Dmitrovsky branch of the federal state budgetary educational institution higher professional education "Moscow
State Agroengineering University named after V.P. Goryachkina"
2. Moscow Film and Video Institute (branch) of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "St. Petersburg State University of Cinema and Television"

universities

1. State Polar Academy
2. Saint Petersburg State Academy veterinary medicine
3. St. Petersburg State Academy of Theater Arts
4. St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering
5. St. Petersburg State University of Engineering and Economics
6. St. Petersburg State University of Water Communications
7. St. Petersburg State University of Cinema and Television
8. St. Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts
9. St. Petersburg State University of Service and Economics
10. St. Petersburg State University of Technology and Design

Branches

1. branch of the federal state budgetary educational institution of higher professional education "Russian State University for the Humanities" in St. Petersburg

Please note that in the results of the Performance Monitoring 2019, the "Teaching Staff Salary" indicator is not evaluated, and data on the "Graduate Employment" indicator has not been published. The rating is built on the basis of 5 target indicators.

Universities are sorted in the following order: by league, index J and university name in alphabetical order.

For each of the many values of indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of universities (taking into account the specifics), with the exception of the indicator "Salary of teaching staff" and "Employment of graduates", the ranking is carried out in descending order of the values of the indicator

There are 5 areas (A, B, C, D, E). Each area is assigned a weight:

Area A - the value of the indicator is above the value of the 1st quartile. Weight +5
Area B - the value of the indicator is above the threshold and above the median, but is not included in area A. Weight +3
Area C - the value of the indicator is above the threshold, but is not included in area A and B. Weight +1
Area D - the value of the indicator is below the threshold, but above the 3rd quartile. Weight 0
Area E - the value of the indicator is below the threshold and is not included in area D. Weight -1

Based on the hit of indicator values in the area, the J index is calculated as the sum of the weights of belonging to the areas.

If the value of the indicator is higher than the threshold, then it is indicated by the icon, otherwise, by the icon

If the university has fulfilled 3 or more indicators, then it is indicated by the icon, otherwise by the icon

There are 10 leagues in total:

League 1: universities with J = 25 "Salary of teaching staff and the number of completed indicators ≥ 3
League 2: universities with 22 ≤ J ≤ 24 "Salary of teaching staff and the number of completed indicators ≥ 3
League 3: universities with 19 ≤ J ≤ 21 "Salary of teaching staff and the number of completed indicators ≥ 3
League 4: universities with 15 ≤ J ≤ 18 "Teaching staff salaries and the number of completed indicators ≥ 3
League 5: universities with 11 ≤ J ≤ 14 "Salary of teaching staff and the number of completed indicators ≥ 3
League 6: universities with 7 ≤ J ≤ 10 "Salary of teaching staff and the number of completed indicators ≥ 3
League 7: universities with 1 ≤ J ≤ 6 "Salary of teaching staff and the number of completed indicators ≥ 3
League 8: universities with 3 ≤ J ≤ 9 and the number of completed indicators
League 9: universities with 0 ≤ J ≤ 2 and the number of completed indicators
League 10: universities with J ≤ -1 and the number of completed indicators

Reference:
The median is middle point distribution: half of the observations are located above it, and the other half are below it (the median of numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 102 is 5).
When there is an even number of observations, the median is the midpoint between the two middle observations.
The median can be divided into quarters, or, as they are also called, quartiles. The first quartile consists of the bottom 25% of observations; second of the next 25% of observations, etc.

league	University/branch	Completed more than 3 indicators	Image activity	Scientific research activities	International activities /Reduced contingent	Fin.-economic activity	Salary of teaching staff	Additional indicator
1	State Institute of the Russian Language. A.S. Pushkin	Yes J=25	89.45 A	466.63 A	28.25 A	8221.51 A	184.24	11.32 A
1	Moscow Polytechnic University	Yes J=25	69.51 A	412.42 A	17.74 A	3834.79 A	204.82	4.53 A
1	Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology(National research university)	Yes J=25	94.56 A	4061.84 A	11.00 A	8767.60 A	244.94	6.70 A
1	National Research Tomsk State University	Yes J=25	76.23 A	1694.19 A	20.74 A	5485.34 A	239.66	5.02 A
1	National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University	Yes J=25	77.58 A	1434.51 A	27.92 A	3969.73 A	218.50	7.36 A
1	National Research University of Technology"MISiS"	Yes J=25	73.76 A	2463.22 A	26.14 A	11304.18 A	211.19	5.25 A
1	National Research Nuclear University "MEPhI"	Yes J=25	89.40 A	3187.97 A	21.83 A	9751.86 A	282.76	7.72 A
1	First St. Petersburg State Medical University named after Academician I.P. Pavlova	Yes J=25	79.44 A	271.30 A	12.99 A	7334.07 A	201.28	70.26 A
1	Privolzhsky Research Medical University	Yes J=25	70.98 A	311.93 A	15.77 A	5453.38 A	199.19	69.13 A
1	Russian University Friendship between nations	Yes J=25	68.72 A	302.66 A	28.49 A	6835.70 A	225.23	5.03 A
1	Saint Petersburg State University	Yes J=25	86.91 A	603.40 A	13.87 A	4236.28 A	194.32	15.21 A
1	St. Petersburg Polytechnic University of Peter the Great	Yes J=25	75.89 A	1480.98 A	15.38 A	5668.39 A	244.76	4.53 A
1	Branch of "Russian Customs Academy" in Vladivostok	Yes J=25	67.87 A	304.62 A	658.10 A	4194.62 A	309.04	5.10 A
2	State University for Land Management	Yes J=23	70.04 A	393.80 A	6.72 B	3914.61 A	204.77	5.25 A
2	Far Eastern federal university	Yes J=23	68.98 A	447.90 A	9.52 B	6341.82 A	202.54	4.58 A
2	Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University	Yes J=23	71.81 A	615.50 A	15.71 A	3298.97 B	223.91	5.01 A
2	Kazan National Research Technical University A.N. Tupolev-KAI	Yes J=23	70.49 A	1030.71 A	6.01 B	4068.06 A	231.82	4.67 A
2	Moscow State Academy of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnology - MBA named after K.I. Scriabin	Yes J=23	71.06 A	285.18 A	5.52 B	4052.62 A	225.57	89.97 A
2	Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University)	Yes J=23	72.25 A	1141.22 A	5.76 B	4516.10 A	206.13	5.51 A
2	Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation	Yes J=23	88.48 A	164.51 B	13.18 A	3937.38 A	205.68	7.52 A

ANNOTATION

Over the past five years, a system of external evaluation of the quality of universities has been functioning. The article is devoted to the analysis of quantitative and qualitative changes in the approach to measuring the effectiveness of higher education organizations, as well as an overview of the prospects for introducing an internal system for assessing the quality of education in a university.

ABSTRACT

Over the past five years, there has been a system of external evaluation of the quality of Higher education institutions. The article is devoted to the analysis of quantitative and changes in the approach to measuring the effectiveness of higher education organizations, as well as to the review of the prospects for the introduction of an internal system for assessing the quality of education in Higher education.

Keywords: performance monitoring, performance criteria, performance thresholds, Roadmap, GEF 3++.

keywords: monitoring the effectiveness, performance criteria, threshold values of the effectiveness, roadmap, GEF 3++.

On December 30, 2012, the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation came into force
No. 2620-r., approving the action plan aimed at improving the efficiency of education and science (“Roadmap of the Government of the Russian Federation”). The Roadmap is designed to form the main directions for the development of education and science from preschool education to the training of senior staff. The Roadmap includes the main quantitative characteristics of education systems at all levels for the period from 2012 to 2018. Since the Roadmap will cease to operate in 2018, and monitoring based on its performance criteria is carried out for five years, it is advisable to sum up and outline the prospects for the last year to analyze the activities of universities.

Among the main directions of the "Roadmap of the Government of the Russian Federation" are the following:

conducting annual monitoring of the effectiveness of universities;
modernization of the system of licensing and accreditation of educational programs;
improvement of the network of educational organizations (reorganization and affiliation).

As you can see, the first tool for achieving the Roadmap indicators was monitoring the effectiveness of universities. On September 01, 2013, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated August 05, 2013 No. 662 came into force. “On monitoring the education system”, which regulates the rules for monitoring the education system and the list of mandatory information about the education system that is subject to monitoring. According to the said Decree, Monitoring the effectiveness of universities is a systematic, standardized monitoring of the state of education and the dynamics of changes in its results, the conditions for the implementation of educational activities. After analyzing this definition, we can judge the three main components of the education monitoring system. First, it is systematic. Starting from 2012, the monitoring of the effectiveness of the activities of universities is carried out annually. Second, standardization. The system of indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of universities is an expression of the need to standardize monitoring. A logical continuation of the process of developing and approving monitoring indicators was the establishment of threshold values for their implementation. Although the universal list of indicators met the requirement for standardization of observation, it caused controversy in terms of establishing threshold values for their implementation. In this regard, it was fair to assert threshold values depending on the regional affiliation of the university. The third condition for monitoring the effectiveness of universities is the assessment of the conditions for the implementation of educational activities. In order to fulfill this condition, the system of performance indicators was adjusted. Between 2012 and 2017 performance indicators had qualitative changes, and the threshold values for their implementation also changed. Visually, the dynamics of changes in performance indicators and their threshold values is presented in table 1.

Table 1 .

Dynamics of changes in indicators of monitoring the effectiveness of universities

Name of indicator	Threshold*
Name of indicator	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017 (project)
Educational activities

International activity

PPP salary
Infrastructure
Reduced contingent of students
Share of candidates and doctors of sciences
Additional indicator
Employment

*Threshold values are given for St. Petersburg

As can be seen from Table 1, starting from 2014, the threshold values of six of the seven indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of universities have not changed. An exception was the indicator “Salary of teaching staff”, the threshold value of which was increased to the level regulated by the Roadmap of the Government of the Russian Federation. The currently established system of performance indicators is as rational as possible. In terms of achieving threshold levels monitoring indicators, it is impossible to formulate a “universal recipe” for their achievement, because many of the indicators are interconnected. Thus, the indicator "Educational activity" encourages universities to adhere to a certain standard when enrolling students (on a budgetary and paid basis). Achieving the threshold value of this indicator is possible in two cases:

if the university has a high passing score for budgetary framework learning;
if the university limits admission on a paid-contractual basis of education (sets a limit of points required when concluding a contract for a paid form of education). When choosing the second approach to achieve the indicator, universities inevitably lose financial resources from their main activity, which, in turn, leads to difficulties in achieving the indicators “Financial and economic activity”, “Salary of teaching staff”. Consequently, universities are forced to exist in conditions of severe contradictions between maximizing income and maintaining the required level of the average USE score of applicants. The block of indicators “Financial and economic activity”, “Salary of teaching staff”, “Research activity” depend not only on the amount of financial resources, but also on the number of scientific and research workers reduced to rates, which, in order to achieve these indicators, must be minimized. But here, too, universities are faced with a contradiction in the form of the “Teacher/Student” ratio approved in the Roadmap of the Government of the Russian Federation. The contradiction lies in the fact that, by increasing the number of students (in particular, those studying on an extrabudgetary basis), universities are obliged to recruit teachers (at non-budgetary rates). The “Teacher/Student” ratio should be 1/12, therefore, having accepted 12 paying students, at least 1 teacher hired at an off-budget rate will appear in the NDP. This staff unit will be subject to the same requirements for the payment of average wages, the number of completed contractual R&D and the total amount of income as for all other R&D. In addition, the “Additional” indicator deserves special attention, which actually reflects the degree level of the university’s CPD. Under monitoring conditions, it is economically advantageous for any university to accept non-budgetary rates of research assistants in the positions of a teacher and senior lecturer, because their salary is lower compared to associate professor and professor, and the amount of classroom teaching load can be maximized. In order to prevent such savings from being abused, there is an “Additional” indicator that encourages the admission of teachers with Ph.D. and/or Ph.D.

From the foregoing, we can conclude that the system of indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of universities is maximally interconnected, rational and forms a fairly rigid framework in the multi-aspect activity of the university.

Nevertheless, monitoring the effectiveness of universities has existed for a relatively long time, and many educational institutions have found ways to adapt to the approved system of indicators.

Table 2 is devoted to the results of performance monitoring in chronological dynamics.

Table 2.

Results of monitoring the effectiveness of universities in terms of the number of universities recognized as effective

Table 2 shows that the number of universities recognized as inefficient during the monitoring period has decreased by more than 10 times. The number of universities that have fulfilled 100% of the indicators has increased by 4 times, every 4th university fulfills all performance indicators.

Nevertheless, there is an objective need to identify a list of problematic and difficult to achieve performance indicators. For this purpose, table 3 has been formed.

Table 3

The results of monitoring the effectiveness of universities in St. Petersburg in the context of overcoming the threshold values of indicators

Name of indicator	*Share of organizations that did not meet the threshold value of the specified indicator (%)**
Name of indicator	According to monitoring data in 2015	According to monitoring data in 2016	According to monitoring data in 2017
Educational activities
Employment
PPP salary
Additional indicator
International activity
Financial and economic activity
Research activities

*The number of universities that took part in monitoring the effectiveness, located in the territory of St. Petersburg is indicated

According to the performance monitoring conducted in 2017, the largest number of universities (35.1%) did not meet such indicators as "Educational activities" and "Employment". These indicators were also among the leaders in terms of the difficulty of achieving thresholds in 2016 and 2015. More than a quarter of universities still do not meet the indicator "Salary of teaching staff", and therefore violate the Roadmap of the Government of the Russian Federation; almost 20% of universities do not meet the requirements for the degree of CPD. It should be noted that as a result of the monitoring conducted in 2017, for all performance indicators, the proportion of universities that did not fulfill them decreased.

In 2018, the Roadmap of the Government of the Russian Federation expires, and the positive dynamics in achieving performance indicators demonstrates a high level of adaptation of educational institutions to the existing system of external monitoring. Half of the current indicators are financial in nature and have nothing to do with the quality of education. The only fair indicator is employment, the calculation procedure for which has not yet been determined (except for the fact that information is provided by the FIU). The only condition for overcoming it is the presence of graduates full-time training, employed within one year from the date of graduation. Consequently, universities that implement only part-time study programs are recognized as not automatically meeting this indicator, despite the fact that the vast majority of part-time students are employed, and studying and receiving higher education contributes to advancement in the professional field, which positively characterizes the university.

From the foregoing, it should be concluded that it is necessary to develop an up-to-date system of performance indicators, relying not only on the activities of the university as an economic entity, but as an organization that performs the most important social function. Consumers of educational services are students and employers, whose opinion is not taken into account when evaluating the effectiveness of the university.

It should be expected that the system of self-assessment and self-examination is waiting for a new birth in connection with the growing need to develop an updated system of performance indicators, as well as taking into account the requirements of the FSES HE 3++. In the context of this article, the following innovations of the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education 3++ can be taken out: clause 4.6.1. FSES HE 3++ “The quality of educational activities and training of students in the undergraduate program is determined within the framework of the internal assessment system, as well as the external assessment system, in which the Organization participates on a voluntary basis; clause 4.6.2. FSES HE 3++ “In order to improve the undergraduate program, the Organization, when conducting a regular internal assessment of the quality of educational activities and training students in the undergraduate program, involves employers and (or) their associations, other legal entities and (or) individuals, including the teaching staff of the Organization. As part of the internal system for assessing the quality of educational activities in the undergraduate program, students are given the opportunity to assess the conditions, content, organization and quality educational process in general and individual disciplines (modules) and practices. .

As can be seen from the FSES HE 3++ project, the concept of "internal system for assessing the quality of educational activities" is introduced. The evaluation mechanism is not defined, the tools and criteria are also at the mercy of the management of educational organizations. The only important thing is that previously discounted self-examination (self-assessment) again occupies a key position in the work of an educational organization.

Bibliography:
1. VO monitoring. - URL: https://miccedu.ru/ (accessed 03/12/2018).
2. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 5, 2013 No. 662. “On monitoring the education system”
3. Projects of GEF HE 3++. – URL: http://fgosvo.ru/ (accessed 12.03.2018
4. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 30, 2012 No. 2620-r. "On the approval of the action plan ("road map") "Changes in the sectors of the social sphere, aimed at increasing the efficiency of education and science."