Legal Basis for The Organization of School Education in Ukraine

  • Authors

    • Iryna Zhukova Department of Public Administration and Project Management, State Institution of Higher Education “University of Education Management”, National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine Publishing Group “Scientific Perspectives”, Kyiv, Ukraine.
    • Oksana Strelchenko Department of Management and Administration, Educational and Scientific Institute of Law and Psychology, National Academy of Internal Affairs, Kyiv, Ukraine
    • Olga Sharahina Department of Slavic and Romano-Germanic Philology, Educational and Scientific Institute of Philology and Journalism, V. I. Vernadsky Taurida National University, Kyiv, Ukraine
    https://doi.org/10.14419/nenpf758

    Received date: July 31, 2025

    Accepted date: August 8, 2025

    Published date: August 14, 2025

  • educational equality; educational policy; inclusion; legal regulation; pedagogical management

  • Abstract

    The article analyzes the conceptual and categorical apparatus and systemic characteristics of the definition of “general secondary education” in the context of the modern educational space. It is substantiated that the legal interpretation of the achievement of educational results within general secondary education is of great conceptual importance but needs to be expanded in the field of applied regulation at the level of educational institutions. The issues of information and psychological security and its relationship with indicators of psychological stability of respondents are considered. The expediency of introducing an integrated approach to ensuring internal educational equality at the institutional level is established, which, in turn, requires harmonization of the implementation of legislative requirements in general secondary education institutions. The author proposes a mechanism for overcoming regulatory and practical differences by developing a package of recommendations from educational policy actors aimed at improving the gender and social component of the educational process. Such recommendations can be adapted and implemented by educational institutions, considering the specifics of their functioning.

  • References

    1. Jedličková, T., Svobodová, A., & Kachlík, V. (2019). Geology at the Lower Secondary Educational Level (ISCED 2). Scientia in educatione, 10(3), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.1265
    2. Brown, E. E. (2023). The Making of Our Middle Schools. An Account of the Development of Secondary Education in the United States. Creative Media Partners, LLC. https://books.google.bf/books?id=Va4AAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr
    3. Lokshyna, O. (2018). The European dimension of the competence-based school education in Ukraine. Revista de Pedagogie – Journal of Pedagogy, 1, 47–64. https://doi.org/10.26755/RevPed/2018.1/47
    4. Stronati, C. (2023). The design of upper secondary education across OECD countries: Managing choice, coherence and specialisation. https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019
    5. Casanova, D., Di Napoli, R., & Leijon, M. (2018). Which space? Whose space? Experience in involving students and teachers in space design. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(4), 488–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1414785
    6. Steiner-Khamsi, G., Jóhannesdóttir, K., & Magnúsdóttir, B. R. (2024). The school-autonomy-with-accountability reform in Iceland: looking back and making sense. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2024.2375087
    7. Kariippanon, K. E. (2018). Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environ-ments Research, 21, 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9254-9
    8. Shlikhta, N., & Shlikhta, I. (2019). We cultivate academic integrity at school: methodological guidelines for teachers. Kyiv: BV, 81 p. https://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/handle/123456789/17275
    9. Chipamaunga, S., & Prozesky, D. (2019). How students experience integration and perceive development of the ability to integrate learning. Ad-vances in Health Sciences Education, 24, 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9850-1
    10. Serdiuk, N. (2022). Training future foreign language teachers as innovative upbringing work managers (based on the competence approach, index of satisfaction and professiogram). Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University Journal, 4 (111), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.35433/pedagogy.4(111).2022.234-245
    11. Cerna, L. (2021). Promoting inclusive education for diverse societies: A conceptual framework. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019
    12. Madalińska-Michalak, J. (2023). School Policy and Reforms in Poland in the Light of Decentralisation: Between Democratisation and Centralisa-tion. In School Policy Reform in Europe (pp. 187–211). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35434-2_9
    13. Steele, K. P. (2021). New Perspectives on the History of the Twentieth-Century American High School. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79922-9
    14. Dvořák, D., Simonová, J., Vyhnálek, J., & Gal, P. (2023). Days After a Choice Is Made: Transitions to Professional and Vocational Upper Second-ary Schools in Czechia. Studia paedagogica, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2022-4-1
    15. Garrouste, C. (2010). 100 Years of Educational Reforms in Europe: a contextual database. JRC. https://hal.science/hal-03245325/document
    16. Antonyuk, N., & Pushkar, N. (2022). Academic integrity in the domestic educational space, causes violations and ways of formation. Acta Paeda-gogica Volynienses, 1, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.32782/apv/2022.1.2.2
    17. Kushnir, I. (2022). The Role of the European Education Area in European Union Integration in Times of Crises. European Review, 30(3), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798721000016
    18. Viarengo, M. (2021). Gender Gaps in Education: Evidence and Policy Implications. EENEE Analytical Report No. 46. European Commission. https://eenee.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Analytical-Report-No-46-Gender-Gaps-in-Education-Evidence-and-Policy-Implications.pdf
    19. Day, W. H., & McMorris, F. R. (1985). A formalisation of consensus index methods. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 47(2), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8240(85)90049-7
    20. Dello-Iacovo, B. (2009). Curriculum reform and ‘quality education’ in China: An overview. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.02.008
    21. Jónasdóttir, M., Ragnarsdóttir, G., & Eiríksdóttir, E. (2023). Cascading effect of upper secondary education policy reform: the experiences and per-spectives of university teachers. Education Inquiry, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2023.2207297
    22. Middeldorp, M. M., Edzes, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. (2019). Smoothness of the school-to-work transition: general versus vocational upper-secondary education. European Sociological Review, 35(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcy043
    23. Mirazchiyski, E. K., Štremfel, U., Alfirević, N., & Čačija, L. N. (2023). Education Policies and Reforms in Slovenia and Croatia: Shared History, Diverging Paths. In School Policy Reform in Europe (pp. 237–259). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35434-2_11
    24. Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. (2020). Importance-performance analysis based balanced scorecard for performance evaluation in higher education institutions. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(3), 647–678. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.11940
    25. Onyshchenko, N., Serdiuk, N., & Krykun, V. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ training for the innovative extracurricular work. Advanced Education, 8(19), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.225789

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Zhukova, I., Strelchenko, O., & Sharahina, O. (2025). Legal Basis for The Organization of School Education in Ukraine. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 14(4), 399-404. https://doi.org/10.14419/nenpf758