Analyse a particular case or set of cases of policy-making

However, by establishing a new distribution of powers and responsibilities between educational authorities at different levels, the Law on Education could not answer the question: how to manage in the new conditions? According to the general management theory in unstable conditions with hardly predictable changes, only flexible control structures can be effective. However, the management structures that operate today at all levels of the education system are built on a linear-functional principle, and therefore, in their type are rigid and can work well only in stable conditions. Organizational management mechanisms do not meet modern requirements either. There are 4 main shortcomings in them:

1. Low focus of management. Federal and regional standards for the quality of education are still being developed, the social order for education is not defined, therefore the aims of education are vague and pedagogical workers do not have clear guidelines. As indefinitely as for educational processes, benchmarks for supporting processes have been defined, since many standards for ensuring the availability of educational institutions with the necessary means and resources, the norms for spending resources, and social and hygienic standards that take into account the specifics of the territories have not been developed. 2. Delay in making decisions on education. It is most noticeable when managing the supporting processes, especially the program-methodological, personnel and logistical support.

3. Low efficiency of control of execution of decisions. The control is carried out according to the traditional scheme, and in its sphere only the most important decisions fall. Today, the federal and municipal government bodies are not sufficiently monitoring which part of the decisions that have been made remain unfulfilled in full.

4. Inadequacy of procedures for horizontal coordination between units. W ith the existing distribution of responsibilities, the interests of the educational system or the institution as a whole are represented only by the head of the relevant management body, and on his shoulders lies the main burden of ensuring the integration of the efforts of different functional units. T he top level of leadership is an overloaded solution to the tasks of internal coordination. Mechanisms for managing the development of education, in contrast to the mechanisms of management of functioning, are now in the stage of formation and debugging.

T his is affected by the narrowness of the development management functions that were implemented in the recent past, and, as a result, little experience and inadequate management skills necessary for the implementation of these functions. Setting concrete and realistic goals is one of the weakest points in the existing management systems. M anagement without goals does not happen, because without them it loses one of its most important components — feedback. B ut often in practice the real goals are replaced by pseudo-goals.

F ormulations such as «improve the level of satisfaction of educational needs,» «create conditions for the full development of students,» etc., indicate a lack of a clear vision of the perspective and orientation to concrete results according to Soloviev A. (2006, p. 344) [8]. B ased on studies of Titova N. (.

2004,p. 237) non-coordinated actions of various divisions of management bodies in solving development management tasks are largely due to the inflexibility of existing organizational structures. A long with increasing focus, systemic and flexible management of development requires the expansion of public participation, especially pedagogical, in determining the prospects for the development of education and the examination of development programs. S.

trengthening democratic principles in governance is one of the most important tasks, the solution of which requires special attention [9]. C onclusionThus, having considered the factors influencing the process of political decision making, the following conclusions can be drawn: a political decision is the central element of the transformation of political power. T his is a consideration of various factors of society’s life in the process of political activity. There are many definitions of political decision-making, but all of them agree that in essence this is the development of several options for eliminating the political problem that has arisen and further choosing the best (best) of them, the implementation of which must eliminate the problem with maximum efficiency. Any political decision must meet a number of requirements, which indicates a political culture of society. Different researchers differently determine the stages of the decision-making process.

M ost often used one is represented in our paper. T he legal aspect has a last decisive impact on the decision.

T he subject must always correlate it with the rules of law when formulating a decision. To regulate the process of making political decisions in this area, it is necessary to attribute constitutional and legal responsibility, as well as many normative and legal acts, directly or indirectly affecting the implementation of the decision. B esides, if you know the factors that have a decisive influence on the political decision-making process in the country, you can unerringly determine the reasons for these decisions, analyze the possible consequences, and make recommendations on how to adjust the decision-making process. Based on the shortcomings of the department of education, the following are the main directions of its development: strengthening the orientation toward development; increasing the focus, system and flexibility of management; transition from reactive to advanced control; democratization of management. The management of education in Russia is on the threshold of a new era, the transition to which will require a real, and not a declarative change of principled attitudes and the formation of a new administrative culture. H.

ow long and painful this transition will not be to a small extent depends on the political decisions. Bibliography1. D egtiarev А., 2004, Making political decisions: problems of theory and practice, vol. 3, no. 2, p.

207. 2. Isaev B., Baranov N., 2008, Political relations and political process in modern Russia. T utorial. S t. P.

etersburg, pp. 395−398.

3. Kazantsev N., 2010, Ideology of law to the state or the ideology of the state to the law? / Social Sciences and Modernity., vol.1, no. 2, pp. 42−50.

4. Kupryashin G., 2006, Adoption of political decisions in public administration. Bulletin of Moscow University, vol.21, no.

1.5. Pugachev V., Soloviev A., 2000, Introduction to political science. Moscow: Aspect Press, vol.1, no.1, p. 378.

6. Pushkareva G., 2002, Political Management: Textbook., pp. 400−405.

7. Smorgunov L., 2005, Adoption of political decisions: theory and methodology. 2005., no. 4, pp. 23−27.

8. Soloviev A., 2006, The adoption of government decisions. Tutorial. Moscow: KnoRus, vol.1, no.2, p. 344.

9. Titova N., 2004, Development and adoption of managerial decisions: a course of lectures., vol.2, no.3, p. 237.