«Educational Studies Moscow» invites authors to publish articles and reviews about the datasets they have collected for research in the field of education.

Emiliya Yu. Bobovnikova — 1st year post-graduate student of the Faculty of Law, St. Petersburg State University. 
Address: 7–9 Universitetskaya Emb., 199034 St. Petersburg, Russian Federation. E-mail: eyubobovnikova@ya.ru 

Kirill S. Vorobev — 4th year student of the Judicial and Prosecutorial specialty of the Institute of Prosecutor’s Office, Ural State Law University named after V.F. Yakovlev. 
Address: 21 Komsomolskaya St., 620066 Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation. E-mail: kirill.vorobev09@gmail.com 

Danil A. Zhikharev — 1st year master’s student at the Institute of Education of the Higher School of Economics. 
Address: 16-10 Potapovsky Lane, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: dazhikharev@edu.hse.ru (сorresponding author) 

Ruslan K. Kuchakov — Junior Researcher, Institute for the Rule of Law, European University at Saint Petersburg. 
Address: 6/1a Gagarinskaya St., 191187 Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation. E-mail: rkuchakov@eu.spb.ru 

Gennadii A. Porosenkov — Expert of Laboratory for Anti-Corruption Policy, National Research University Higher School of Economics. 
Address: 20 Myasnitskaya St., 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: gporosenkov@hse.ru 

The study examines the targeting of scheduled and surprise inspections of school food services conducted by Rospotrebnadzor. Using reports of cases of mass poisoning from open sources and official inspection data, we look at the association between inspections and mass poisoning incidents in Russian schools. We find that schools are the most audited organizations among all areas of economic activity. Schools bear a significant part of the regulatory burden, contrary to the popular belief that the business actors are the most audited. However, we do not find any changes in the organization of inspections after food poisoning incidents. We also outline the limitations of the risk-based approach in educational institutions.

Ekaterina V. Bushina — PhD in Psychology, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Sociocultural Research of the National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: ebushina@hse.ru (сorresponding author) 

Azkhariya M. Karimova — Research Intern at the Center for Sociocultural Research, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: amuminova@hse.ru 

Address: 20, Myasnitskaya St., Moscow 101000, Russian Federation. 

Russian schools have been characterized by its ethnic diversity over the past decade. Children from ethnic minorities in Russia face problems in acculturation, including school bullying. The purpose of this article is to determine the relationship between the acculturation strategies of ethnic minority students, acculturation expectations of Russian students, and their roles in school bullying situations. We conducted a social psychological survey among a sample of 429 students, 200 of whom were Russian (M age = 16.18, SD age = 1.43) and 229 were members of ethnic minorities (M age = 15.67, SD age = 1.65). It was used scales from the MIRIPS and the Revised Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire (Russian version). The results of the study showed significant differences in the level of victimization. It was also found that acculturation expectation of segregation was positively related to victimization (β = 0.24, p-value <0.01), and aggression (β = 0.18, p-value < 0.01) among Russian students, whereas acculturation strategy of segregation was positively related to victimization (β = 0. 40, p-value < 0.01), assimilation strategy positively (β = 0.07, p-value < 0.01), and integration strategy negatively (β = –0.05, p-value < 0.05) related to aggression among ethnic minorities. The results of the study are discussed in terms of a sociocultural approach using psychological theories and research.

Ludmila M. Volosnikova — PhD in History, Associate Professor, Director of the Institute of Psychology and Pedagogy, Tyumen State University. E-mail: l.m.volosnikova@utmn.ru (сorresponding author) 

Svetlana V. Ignatjeva — PhD in Physics, Head of Computer Science Department, Daugavpils University (Latvia); Professor at the Institute of Psychology and Pedagogy, Tyumen State University. E-mail: svetlana.ignatjeva@du.lv 

Ludmila V. Fedina — PhD in Pedagogy, Associate Professor, Chair of Childhood`s Psychology and Pedagogy, Institute of Psychology and Pedagogy. Tyumen State University. E-mail: l.v.fedina@utmn.ru 

Zhanna Yu. Bruk — PhD in Pedagogy, Associate Professor, Chair of Childhood`s Psychology and Pedagogy, Institute of Psychology and Pedagogy, Tyumen State University. E-mail: z.y.bruk@utmn.ru 

Address: 6, Volodarskogo St., Tyumen, 625003, Russia. 

Inclusive education as education, as the right to co-educate children with special educational needs in the regular classroom, is a global framework for the transformation of general education systems. At the same time, critical studies show that the degree of real inclusion of schools is increasing slowly. The objectives of this study were factors that determine the teacher’s attitude to inclusive education.The article presents an analysis of teacher’s job satisfaction and its relationship with attitudes towards inclusive education. 
The empirical base of the study was data obtained from a survey of 119 school teachers in the city of Tyumen. The study of attitudes towards inclusive education and satisfaction with work of teachers was carried out using the author’s questionnaire. With the help of factor analysis, three factors of the teachers’ attitude to inclusive education were identified: teachers see inclusion as a pedagogical resource (24.8% of the total variance); problems (23.8%); risks (14.1%). Cluster analysis made it possible to identify homogeneous groups of teachers who have their own dominants in relation to inclusion: romantics, realists and critics. 
A four-factor structure of job satisfaction was also found: safety and security, organization of the work process, satisfaction with remuneration, involvement in work. It has been established that teachers rate the factor “safety and security” in their work the lowest. Cluster analysis made it possible to identify three groups of teachers: satisfied with their work; satisfied with remuneration for work; not satisfied with work. The most vulnerable are teachers who fall into the third cluster group: due to the low assessment of satisfaction with all factors, they will be inclined to assess inclusion from the standpoint of problems and barriers. 
Correlation analysis established direct statistically significant relationships between teachers’ assessment of inclusion as a pedagogical resource and job satisfaction; the strongest relationship can be traced in the assessment with the indicator “satisfaction with the organization of the work process”.

Niyaz K. Gabdrakhmanov — PhD in Geography, Research Fellow, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: ngabdrahmanov@hse.ru (сorresponding author) 

Liliya B. Karachurina — PhD in Geography, Deputy Head of the Department of Demography, Vishnevsky Institute of Demography, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: lkarachurina@hse.ru 

Nikita V. Mkrtchyan — PhD in Geography, Leading Research Fellow, Vishnevsky Institute of Demography, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: nmkrtchyan@hse.ru 

Oleg V. Leshukov — PhD in Education, Head of the Laboratory for University Development, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: oleshukov@hse.ru 

Adress: 20 Myasnitskaya St., 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation. 

As a result of measures related to the liquidation of inefficient universities and low-quality education, the university network of Russia in 2013-2019 has significantly changed its configuration. In particular, the total number of universities decreased by 42%, including parent universities by 23%, branches by 56%. At the same time, the number of students decreased by 33% over the same period, the reform occurred during a period of demographic decline in the youth age cohorts. However, the consequences of the reform to optimize the network of universities could have a different impact on the structure of urban and regional higher education systems in different parts of the country. 
Most of the federal and departmental statistics describing the situation in the field of higher education, and, accordingly, the results of research, are presented at the national or regional levels. However, almost all universities are located in cities, and this key level from the point of view of spatial localization of educational institutions falls out of the pool of educational analytics and research. Large cities everywhere attract young people with a wide range of factors. One of them is the possibility of choosing a university and an educational program. Other factors are related to the quality of the environment and services, the breadth and diversity of the labor market, which positively distinguish large cities from less populated places. The available data do not allow us to divide the migration attractiveness of the city for young people into those related to the presence of a university and the quality of educational services provided by it and those related to other possible factors of attractiveness. However, we can analyze whether there presentation of universities in cities of different sizes is correlated with their migration attractiveness, expressed in net migration indicators of 15-19-year olds. The conducted research has shown that the cities with a population of over 250 thousand people are the most attractive for migration and at the same time the least subjected to the reorganization of the university network. The concentration of universities in the largest cities of the country contributes to the strengthening of centripetal migration of young people. Small towns have experienced the main consequences of the implementation of state policy measures aimed at improving the quality of higher education. For many applicants from small and medium-sized cities, having one university or branch was the only opportunity to get a higher education without leaving their hometown.

Galina Z. Efimova — Candidate of Sciences in Sociology, Professor, Department of General and Economic Sociology, Tyumen State University. 
Address: 6 Volodarskogo St., 625003 Tyumen, Russian Federation. E-mail: g.z.efimova@utmn.ru (сorresponding author) 

Mikhail V. Gribovskiy — Doctor of Sciences in History, Professor, Department of Russian History, Tomsk State University. 
Address: 36 Lenin Ave., 634050 Tomsk, Russian Federation. E-mail: mgrib@mail2000.ru 

Alexander N. Sorokin — Candidate of Sciences in History, Leading Researcher, Laboratory for Interdisciplinary Space Studies, Director of the School for Environmental and Social Studies, Tyumen State University. 
Address: 6 Volodarskogo St., 625003 Tyumen, Russian Federation. E-mail: soranhist@yandex.ru 

The article presents an assessment of the level of social prestige of the academic profession in Russia and European countries. In literature a thesis about the crisis of academic profession in prevail. The empirical part of the study is based on the results of in-depth interviews with academic staff in Europe (45 informants, 2016–2019) and Russia (120 informants, 2019–2021). 
Informants from European universities note the high prestige of the profession, but aslo point out its decrease from the end of the 20th to the beginning of the 21st century. One of the reasons is the ignorance of society about the professional activities of scientific and pedagogical workers and their official duties, which are much broader than the transfer of knowledge to students. In addition, socio-economic factors, insufficient funding for higher education, multitasking and multidisciplinary functions of academic workers, consumer attitude of students to the educational process were named as reasons for the decline in prestige. 
In opposite to foreign colleagues, Russian informants has noted the increase in the prestige of the profession in recent years. At the same time, this trend does not apply to all scientific and pedagogical staff, but only to those who meet high qualification requirements. Informants from Russian universities note a positive and respectful perception of the academic profession, both by the general public and by the social environment.

Yury P. Zaretskiy — Doctor of Sciences (History), Professor of the Faculty of Humanities, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”. 
Address: 20, Myasnitskaya St., 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: yzaretsky@hse.ru 

The article presents materials indicating the need to return to the question of the place of the first secular printed textbooks in the history of Russian education and culture. These textbooks were compiled and published abroad by Ilya Fedorovich Kopievsky (c. 1651 — 1714) on the initiative of Peter the Great. The first seven of them came out from the printing shop of the Amsterdam merchant Jan Thessing (1659 — 1701) who received the tzar’s privilege to sell his printed materials in Russia. Two succeeding were published in other Amsterdam printing shops, and the last one was printed in Polish Stolzenberg. Thanks to these textbooks, the general Russian reader was able to get acquainted for the first time with the basics of scientific knowledge in history, geography, mathematics, astronomy, navigation, warfare, and linguistics. Five interrelated matters support the need to return to the topic in question: 1) the historical circumstances of the appearance of Kopievsky-Thessing’s books; 2) their topics and content; 3) their place in the repertoire of the early 18th-century Russian readers; 4) their distribution in Russia; 5) the number of their copies preserved in libraries today. The article concludes that contrary to common opinion these books played a noteworthy role in the Petrine reforms of education and culture.

Filip A. Kazin — Ph.D. in History, Vice-Rector of the St. Petersburg Academy of Postgraduate Pedagogical Education, Associate Professor of the Department of Public Administration, HSE University (St. Petersburg). 
Address: 11–13 Lomonosova St., 191002 Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation. E-mail: fkazin@hse.ru (сorresponding author) 

Natalia G. Lukyanova — Ph.D. in Economics, Head of the Budget Transparency Department, St. Petersburg Finance Committee. 
Address: 16 Voznesensky Av., 190000 Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation. E-mail: lukyanova@kfin.gov.spb.ru 

The article dwells on the image of the modern and future school in the context of the system of values and outlook on the life of Russian high school students of 9-11 grades. The empirical basis of the study is the analysis of the answers of high school students from 46 schools of St. Petersburg to the questions posed during the school foresight sessions in September-December 2021 within the project “Your Budget at Schools 2021”. The study includes a detailed consideration of the image of the school through the eyes of high school students of St. Petersburg, as well as the interpretation of this image in terms of its relationship with the system of values of modern youth. The main conclusions of the study are that the importance of such elements as “adult life skills”, “computer competence”, “efficient communication skills”, “self-development and self-improvement”, “collaboration skills”, “readiness to extracurricular activities” has increased in the structure of the school image. On the contrary, the importance of such elements as “general literacy”, “working with information”, “school subject results”, “readiness to work and earn a living” goes down. Comfort, practical skills for adult life, self-development, efficient communication, health, and recreation become the keywords describing the desired image of the “future” school. In our opinion, the image of the “future school” in the minds of high school students reflects primarily their urgent need for having at schools modern comfortable spaces for active learning and extracurricular activities. At the same time, the rise of project-based learning importance, the involvement of young people into social design processes provide good opportunities to use these spaces for the development of socially useful activities (at least at school and local community level), which has high educational and civil impact.

Maria V. Maximova — PhD in International Educational Development Cooperation, Senior Specialist of the Laboratory of Online Learning and Quality Analysis in Education of the Institute of Online Education, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation. E-mail: mvmaksimova@fa.ru (сorresponding author) 

Olga V. Frolova — Senior Specialist of the Laboratory of Online Learning and Quality Analysis in Education of the Institute of Online Education, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation. E-mail: ovfrolova@fa.ru 

Tatiana A. Chekalina — Candidate of Sciences in Pedagogy, Associate Professor at the Department “Digitalization of Education”, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation. E-mail: tachekalina@fa.ru 

Address: 23, Oleko Dundicha St., 121096 Moscow, Russian Federation. 

These days shows a rapid expansion of neuroscience in various spheres of society. Besides neuroscience results actively introduced in the education system, especially because of digitalization of society. However, there are also started to appear neuromyths, which are misconceptions generated by a misinterpretation of scientific facts related to the brain function. The prevalence of neuromyths could also bring a number of risks that can significantly affect the learning process. The study provides an analysis of the various research results that determined the extent of the prevalence of neuromyths among schools and universities educators in different countries. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of belief in neuromyths among faculties of Russian higher educational institutions. The results of the study showed the need for further active implementation of neurobiology approaches among faculties of educational organizations.

Tatiana V. Semenova — Researcher, Center for Sociology of Higher Education, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. 
Address: Bld. 10, 16 Potapovsky Ln, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: tsemenova@hse.ru 

Susanna S. Sologova — Candidate of Sciences in Biology, Associate Professor of the Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. E-mail: sologova_s_s@staff.sechenov.ru (сorresponding author) 

Sergey P. Zavadsky — Candidate of Sciences in Pharmacology, Associate Professor of the Department of Pharmacology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. E-mail: zavadskiy_s_p@staff.sechenov.ru 

Ekaterina M. Grigorevskikh — Senior Lecturer of the Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. E-mail: grigorevskikh_e_m@staff.sechenov.ru 

Arus G. Margaryan — Assistant of the Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. E-mail: margaryan_a_g@staff.sechenov.ru 

Daria A. Trashchenkova — Assistant of the Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. E-mail: trashchenkova_d_a@staff.sechenov.ru 

Esma I. Avakyan — Candidate of Sciences in Medicine, Director of the Representative Office of the International Association for Medical Education, Assistant of the Department of Faculty Therapy No 1, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. E-mail: avakyan_e_i@staff.sechenov.ru 

Dmitry M. Sokhin — graduate of the Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. E-mail: verbose-1@rambler.ru 

Tatiana M. Litvinova — Candidate of Sciences in Pharmacology, Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs, Head of the Department of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. E-mail: litvinova_t_m_1@staff.sechenov.ru 

Elena A. Smolyarchuk — Candidate of Sciences in Medicine, Head of the Center for Clinical Study of Medicines, Head of the Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. E-mail: smolyarchuk_e_a@staff.sechenov.ru 

Address: Bld. 2, 8 Trubetskaya St., 119991 Moscow, Russian Federation. 

The forced massive transition of universities to distance learning due to the pandemic has raised questions about the effectiveness of online education in general and video lectures in particular. Research shows that video lectures are either comparable or less effective than face-to-face lectures. In this work, based on the data collected as part of the experiment, we compare two lecture formats (videolecture and face-to-face lecture) based on the educational results of students, and also evaluate the combined lecture format. The experiment involved 151 second-year students in the direction of training “Pharmacy” of Sechenov University. The field experiment was carried out in the spring semester of the 2020-2021 academic year in three stages. At the first stage, some of the students listened to a face-to-face lecture, and some - a video lecture. At the second stage, both groups were swapped. At the final stage, both groups listened to a combined lecture. Our research has shown that a video lecture and a face-to-face lecture are the same in their effectiveness: on average, students received the same educational results as a result of mastering the lecture material. At the same time, the combined lecture led to an increase in the educational results of students - after the combined lecture format, students received a higher score for the post-test, and also showed a greater increase in the level of knowledge. The results of the study will be especially relevant for the administration of universities responsible for the implementation of online learning, and teachers who conduct lectures.