CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2024, Vol. 11, p. 2 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.594 Retraction of published article due to the author’s proposal Article: CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 (https://doi.org/10. 55056/cte.548) Title: Evaluation of the system "quality of education" and its socio-economic impact: analogies with software testing Authors: Artem Artyukhov, Iurii Volk, Nadiia Artyukhova, Roman Halenin, Liudmyla Batsenko The editorial board of CTE Workshop Proceedings withdraws paper owing to the author’s proposal. 5 June, 2023 CTE Workshop Proceedings © Copyright for this paper by its authors, published by Academy of Cognitive and Natural Sciences (ACNS). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.594 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 https://acnsci.org/cte https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 https://acnsci.org CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 Evaluation of the system “quality of education” and its socio-economic impact: analogies with software testing Artem Artyukhov1, Iurii Volk1, Nadiia Artyukhova1, Roman Halenin2 and Liudmyla Batsenko3,4 1Sumy State University, 2 Rymskogo-Korsakova Str., Sumy, 40007, Ukraine 2International European University, 42V Academician Glushkov Ave., Kyiv ,03187, Ukraine 3Royal Agricultural University, Stroud Rd., Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 6JS, United Kingdom 4Sumy National Agrarian University, 160 Herasyma Kondratieva Str., Sumy, 40000, Ukraine Abstract. The article is devoted to creating a reliable algorithm for testing the quality of the education system, determining the system’s relationship with the goals of sustainable development, and the resolution of indicators of the socio-economic impact of the system. The substantiation of the application of analogies between testing software products and testing the dynamic system “quality of education” is presented. A type of relationship between the goal of sustainable development SDG 4 “Quality education” and other goals of sustainable development, particularly with SDG 8, “Decent work and economic growth” through the criteria for evaluating educational programs, is proposed. Based on the bibliometric analysis, the indicators of the socio-economic impact of the “quality of education” system are highlighted. The general algorithm for testing the design and the structural and logical diagram of the relationship between internal and external testing of the system are presented. Keywords: quality of education, education policy, testing, socio-economic impact 1. Introduction The dynamic system of “quality of education” has a decisive influence on forming a new academic culture, which is designed to ensure the competitiveness of graduates in the labor market. Testing this system is essential in assessing its performance (including socio-economic impact at the regional, national, and international levels). During testing, the performance of each node and the system as a whole is assessed. It allows you to identify errors (bugs) in the system and propose measures to eliminate them. In addition, it is necessary to consider " a.artyukhov@pohnp.sumdu.edu.ua (A. Artyukhov); y.volk@mss.sumdu.edu.ua (I. Volk); n.artyukhova@pohnp.sumdu.edu.ua (N. Artyukhova); rgalenin@gmail.com (R. Halenin); lbatsenko@yahoo.com (L. Batsenko) ~ https://personal.sumdu.edu.ua/artyukhov/en/ (A. Artyukhov); https://pom.sumdu.edu.ua/en/department/personal-pages/252-iurii-i-volk (I. Volk); https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nadiia-Artyukhova-2 (N. Artyukhova); http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/ASUA/0034128 (R. Halenin); https://eim.snau.edu.ua/en/chairs/management/teachers-of-the-department/liudmyla-batsenko/ (L. Batsenko) � 0000-0003-1112-6891 (A. Artyukhov); 0000-0002-0262-762X (I. Volk); 0000-0002-0609-0102 (R. Halenin); 0000-0003-0872-2334 (L. Batsenko) CTE Workshop Proceedings © Copyright for this paper by its authors, published by Academy of Cognitive and Natural Sciences (ACNS). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 96 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 mailto:a.artyukhov@pohnp.sumdu.edu.ua mailto:y.volk@mss.sumdu.edu.ua mailto:n.artyukhova@pohnp.sumdu.edu.ua mailto:rgalenin@gmail.com mailto:lbatsenko@yahoo.com https://personal.sumdu.edu.ua/artyukhov/en/ https://pom.sumdu.edu.ua/en/department/personal-pages/252-iurii-i-volk https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nadiia-Artyukhova-2 http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/ASUA/0034128 https://eim.snau.edu.ua/en/chairs/management/teachers-of-the-department/liudmyla-batsenko/ https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1112-6891 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0262-762X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0609-0102 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0872-2334 https://acnsci.org/cte https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 https://acnsci.org CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 the system of “quality of education” as an element of the strategy for ensuring sustainable development (sustainable development goals) and determine the relationship between individual goals of sustainable development. The purpose of this work is to create a reliable algorithm for testing the system “quality of education”, determine the relationship of the system with the goals of sustainable development, and determine indicators of the socio-economic impact of the system. 2. Literature review The “quality of education” system is developing dynamically while ensuring proper internal and external conditions. Many literary sources [19, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30] form the requirements for the successful functioning of quality assurance systems. These conditions can be the basis for the formation of indicators of the socio-economic assessment of the quality of education. The variety of these indicators allows their combination to achieve tactically (quality of education and quality of scientific activity) and strategic (socio-economic development resulting from an effective quality system) goals. It is also of interest to increase the socio-economic efficiency of the “quality of education” system by drawing analogies with the processes of testing software products [6], describing physical functions [1], using tools for assessing causal relationships [2, 3, 14, 17, 26]. An essential stage in the formation of a quality education system is to ensure the relationship between SDG 4 “Quality education” and other goals of sustainable development [4, 8, 9, 18, 24, 34, 36, 37], especially with SDG 8 “Decent work and economic growth”. Such an integrated approach made it possible to see the prospects for the development of both the quality assurance system as a whole (using the examples of universities) and individual educational programs [5, 10, 11, 16, 21, 28]. 3. Research methodology This paper proposes using the analogy between software testing and testing the effectiveness of a quality assurance system at a university. The general algorithm for the formation of the educational structure and assessment of its quality can be represented in the form of a logical scheme “creation” – “analysis” – “implementation” (figure 1). The choice of parameters for testing the system “quality of education” is carried out in accordance with the main keywords obtained on the basis of bibliometric analysis of 2000 most cited articles in journals, which are indexed by the scientometric database Scopus (publication period 2015-2020, analysis tool – VOSviewer) upon request “testing of education”. The results of the bibliometric analysis are presented in figure 2. Analysis of keywords shows that the socio-economic component (the keywords “socioeconomic status”, “economic growth”, “job satisfaction”, “human capital”, etc.) occupies an important place in the design of the system of “quality of education”. In addition, an important keyword that appears in the search results is “sustainable de- velopment”. The presence of this keyword and understanding the importance of sustainable development goals in the formation of the relationship between the quality of education and economic growth require the creation of a diagram of the relationship between these parameters. 97 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 Figure 1: Formation of the educational structure and its testing. The structural and logical diagram of the relationship between SDG 4 and other sustainable development goals is shown in figure 3. 4. Testing the “quality of education” system and determining its socio-economic impact Testing of the “quality of education” model is carried out from within and from the outside (figure 4). This process is described in detail in [35]. The first (internal) stage of testing is to check the performance of the quality system by the forces of its creators. Optimization calculation of the trajectory, the introduction of the “quality of education” system and its testing is carried out after the creation of a functioning model. The model is based on the regulatory framework, which at the system level describes the role of each participant (department) in the formation of the quality system, algorithms of actions in various aspects of the formation of the system, etc. The effectiveness of the regulatory framework and algorithms should be 98 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 Figure 2: Bibliometric analysis on the request “testing of education”, keywords for determining the indicators of testing the system “quality of education. confirmed by testing both individual blocks of the system (quality in educational and scientific activities, student surveys, the effectiveness of the quality assurance center, ensuring a plan for implementing the decisions of the quality council, etc.), and the system as a whole (blocks testing and overall model testing). At this stage, errors (bugs) in the operation of system elements as stand-alone components are identified. So it is in conjunction with other components. After preliminary testing (quality control), an overall assessment of the applicability and performance of the model is made. At this stage, close attention is paid to the “interface” of the system, which provides the convenience of introducing the elements of the quality system to an individual user – a participant in educational and / or scientific processes at the university. This stage (quality assurance) is decisive and only after a positive answer to the question “have all the tasks been achieved during the operation of the model?” the system can be tested externally. 99 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 Figure 3: The relationship between the goals of sustainable development and the provision of quality criteria for educational programs. Testing from the outside is done in two parallel ways. 1. Accreditation from independent education quality assurance agencies. The criteria for assessing the quality of the educational program and the quality system as a whole are shown in figure 3. Based on the results of accreditation, the following decisions can be made: • full compliance of the educational program and quality system with elements criteria with of innovation; • full compliance of the educational program and quality system with criteria elements with minor remarks; 100 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 Figure 4: Testing the model “quality of education” and determining the socio-economic impact of the system [35]. 101 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 • critical discrepancy between the educational program and the quality system ac- cording to one or more criteria; • critical discrepancy between the educational program and the quality system by most criteria. To eliminate critical remarks, the university is given a certain period of time, during which there is a return to the internal stage of testing with the stages described above. 2. Evaluation of external stakeholders and rating agencies. Here the main attention is paid not only to the indicators of the quality of educational / scientific activities, but also to the socio-economic consequences of the introduction of an effective quality system at the university. For example, the British publication Times Higher Education in April 2021 published the third issue of THE University Impact Rankings, which aims to analyze the impact of higher education on society and the achievement of UN goals in the field of sustainable development [7, 12, 13, 15, 32, 33]. The ranking takes into account the achievements of universities in achieving each of the 17 goals, and also forms an overall list of University Impact Rankings. In addition to the general place in the world ranking, places are determined for each of the sustainable development goals. Another example of attracting universities to address sustainable development issues through appropriate actions in their scientific, educational and production activities is the UI GreenMetric rating [31]. Among the examples of assessing external stakeholders, the DOU rating of IT graduates should be highlighted [25]. The results of the assessment by external stakeholders and rating agencies are the basis for returning to internal testing of the model, identifying its weaknesses and ways to improve. As a continuation of work [35], the algorithm was tested by the external stakeholders. Testing was carried out based on accreditation examinations of educational programs by the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance (NAQA) [20] (figure 5). External quality assessment was carried out according to the following criteria (as mentioned on figure 3): Criterion 1. The design and objectives of the study program. Criterion 2. The structure and content of the study program. Criterion 3. Access to the study program and learning outcomes recognition. Criterion 4. Teaching and learning under the study program. Criterion 5. Control measures, evaluation of students and academic integrity Criterion 6. Human resources. Criterion 7. Educational environment and material resources. Criterion 8. Internal quality assurance of the study program. Criterion 9. Transparency and publicity. Criterion 10. Study through research (applied during accreditation of study programs of the third cycle of higher education. Level A – the study program and/or the educational activity under such program fully meet the defined criterion and are of an innovative/exemplary character. 102 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 Figure 5: Results of external accreditation (examination) of the Sumy State University educational programs conducted by the (NAQA). Level B – the study program and/or the educational activity under such program meet the defined criterion in general, with possible shortcomings that are deemed minor. Level E – the study program and/or educational activities under such program do not meet the defined criterion in general but identified shortcomings can be eliminated within a one-year period. The results of accreditation, together with the data of rating agencies, were considered when improving the rating of structural units of Sumy State University. Separately, it should be noted that, based on accreditation results, decisions were made to organize the process of introducing innovative teaching methods, strengthening human resources, improving the university regulatory framework, etc. Decisions allow you to influence the marked increase for each of the ten criteria for evaluating the educational program. 5. Conclusions The proposed testing algorithm for the dynamic system “quality of education” allows to conduct a two-stage performance check and highlight the possible loss of connections (the appearance of bugs) between the elements of the system. The approach described in the article to assessing the effectiveness of the functioning of the model through internal and external testing (including through the assessment of the socio-economic impact of the system) makes it possible to determine the key indicators of the quality assurance system management. Based on this testing, mechanisms are being developed to enhance the socio-economic impact of the “quality of education” system at the university, regional, national, and international levels. 103 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 Acknowledgments This research was funded by the grant from the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine “Business – Education – Science coopetition: institutional and economic models of innovation transfer for national security and sustainable development” (reg. n. 0122U000772), “Convergence of economic and educational transformations in the digital society: modeling the impact on regional and national security” (reg. n. 0121U109553). References [1] Afify, H.M.N., Alhefnawi, M.A., Istanbouli, M.J., Alsayed, A.H. and Elmoghazy, Z.A.A.E., 2021. An evaluation of physical model-making as a teaching method in the architectural design studio – A case study at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(1), pp.1123–1132. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej. 2020.07.002. [2] Aggarwal, A.K., 2020. Using Deming’s Cycle for Improvement in a Course: A Case Study. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT), 15(3), pp.31–45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.2020070103. [3] Ali, G., Buruga, B.A. and Habibu, T., 2019. SWOT Analysis of Blended Learning in Public Universities of Uganda: A Case Study of Muni University. J, 2(4), pp.410–429. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/j2040027. [4] Artyukhov, A., Volk, I., Vasylieva, T. and Lyeonov, S., 2021. The role of the university in achieving SDGs 4 and 7: a Ukrainian case. E3S Web Conf., 250, p.04006. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125004006. [5] Artyukhov, A.E., Volk, I.I. and Vasylieva, T.A., 2022. Agile methodology in higher education quality assurance system for SDGs 4, 8 and 9 achievement: national experience. CTE Workshop Proceedings, 9, p.81–94. Available from: https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.105. [6] Baresi, L. and Pezzè, M., 2006. An Introduction to Software Testing. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 148(1), pp.89–111. Proceedings of the School of SegraVis Research Training Network on Foundations of Visual Modelling Techniques (FoVMT 2004). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2005.12.014. [7] Basel Institute of Commons and Economics, 2019. World Social Capital Monitor. Available from: http://commons.ch/wp-content/uploads/Synopsis_SDG_Reports_Goals_Allocation_ 2019.pdf. [8] Bilan, Y., Pimonenko, T. and Starchenko, L., 2020. Sustainable business models for inno- vation and success: bibliometric analysis. E3S Web Conf., 159, p.04037. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015904037. [9] Chigrin, O. and Pimonenko, T., 2014. The Ways of Corporate Sector Firms Financing for Sustainability of Performance. International Journal of Ecology and Development, 29(3), p.1–13. Available from: http://www.ceser.in/ceserp/index.php/ijed/article/view/3227. [10] Cosmulese, C., Grosu, V., Hlaciuc, E. and Zhavoronok, A., 2019. The influences of the digital revolution on the educational system of the EU countries. Marketing and Management of Innovations, (3), p.242–254. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.3-18. 104 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.07.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.07.002 https://doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.2020070103 https://doi.org/10.3390/j2040027 https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125004006 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.105 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2005.12.014 http://commons.ch/wp-content/uploads/Synopsis_SDG_Reports_Goals_Allocation_2019.pdf http://commons.ch/wp-content/uploads/Synopsis_SDG_Reports_Goals_Allocation_2019.pdf https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015904037 http://www.ceser.in/ceserp/index.php/ijed/article/view/3227 https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.3-18 CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 [11] Dźwigoł, H., 2021. Leadership in the Research: Determinants of Quality, Standards and Best Practices. Business Ethics and Leadership, 5(1), pp.45–56. Available from: https: //doi.org/10.21272/bel.5(1).45-56.2021. [12] Eurostat, 2022. Sustainable development in the European Union. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Sustainable_ development_in_the_European_Union. [13] Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, 2022. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4. [14] Graham, D., 2018. PESTEL factors for e-learning revisited: The 4Es of tutoring for value added learning. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(1), pp.17–35. Available from: https: //doi.org/10.1177/2042753017753626. [15] Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, 2019. Global Sustain- able Development Report 2019: The Future is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Devel- opment. New York: United Nations. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/gsdr/gsdr2019. [16] Kasztelnik, K. and Matos, L., 2021. Transformational Educational Leadership and the Innovative Strategies Engaging Online Faculty for the Excellent Teaching Performance in the United States. Business Ethics and Leadership, 5(1), pp.6–21. Available from: https: //doi.org/10.21272/bel.5(1).6-21.2021. [17] Kok, H., Papendick, R.I. and Saxton, K.E., 2009. STEEP: Impact of long-term conservation farming research and education in Pacific Northwest wheatlands. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 64(4), pp.253–264. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.64.4.253. [18] Lopez, B. and Alcaide, A., 2021. Innovation Management, from Materiality Assessment to Sustainability Reporting, opening the Social Impact Black Box. SocioEconomic Challenges, 5(1), pp.13–27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21272/sec.5(1).13-27.2021. [19] Mazurkiewicz, M., Liuta, O. and Kyrychenko, K., 2017. Internal Quality Assurance System for the Higher Education: Experience of Ukraine and Poland. Business Ethics and Leadership, 1(4), p.74–83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.1(4).74-83.2017. [20] Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, 2019. Regulations on Accreditation of Study Programmes in Higher Education. Available from: https://en.naqa.gov.ua/wp-content/ uploads/2020/05/Accreditation_Regulations_2019_ENG.pdf. [21] Olorogun, L., Yunusa, N., Audu, H.G. and Mohammed, A.A., 2018. Management of educational innovations: effects of infusing “critical thinking” into Islamic finance curricula. Marketing and Management of Innovations, (2), pp.69–78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2018.2-06. [22] Onopriienko, K., Onopriienko, V., Petrushenko, Y. and Onopriienko, I., 2021. Environmental education for youth and adults: a bibliometric analysis of research. E3S Web Conf., 234, p.00002. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202123400002. [23] Pavlenko, O., Martynets, V., Dreval, O. and Smolennikov, D., 2020. Analysis of influence of the quality of specialist training on social and economic development. Quality - Access to Success, 21(176), p.81–86. [24] Petrushenko, Y., Aleksandrov, V., Vorontsova, A. and Ponomarenko, O., 2020. Sustainable development goals as a tool for strategic planning in communities: a bibliometric analysis of research. E3S Web Conf., 202, p.03005. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/ 202020203005. 105 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.5(1).45-56.2021 https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.5(1).45-56.2021 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Sustainable_development_in_the_European_Union https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Sustainable_development_in_the_European_Union https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4 https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017753626 https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017753626 https://sdgs.un.org/gsdr/gsdr2019 https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.5(1).6-21.2021 https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.5(1).6-21.2021 https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.64.4.253 https://doi.org/10.21272/sec.5(1).13-27.2021 https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.1(4).74-83.2017 https://en.naqa.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Accreditation_Regulations_2019_ENG.pdf https://en.naqa.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Accreditation_Regulations_2019_ENG.pdf https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2018.2-06 https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202123400002 https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202020203005 https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202020203005 CTE Workshop Proceedings, 2023, Vol. 10: CITEd-2022, pp. 96-106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 [25] Redaktsiia DOU, 2020. Reitynh vyshiv dlia IT-haluzi 2020. Available from: https://dou.ua/ lenta/articles/ukrainian-universities-2020. [26] Reilly, J.B., Myers, J.S., Salvador, D. and Trowbridge, R.L., 2014. Use of a novel, modified fishbone diagram to analyze diagnostic errors. Diagnosis, 1(2), pp.167–171. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2013-0040. [27] Savga, L., Krykliy, O. and Kyrychenko, K., 2018. The Role of Internal and External Stake- holders in Higher Education System in Ukraine. Business Ethics and Leadership, 2(1), p.32–43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.2(1).32-43.2018. [28] Shkarlet, S., Kholiavko, N. and Dubyna, M., 2019. Information economy: management of educational, innovation, and research determinants. Marketing and Management of Innovations, (3), pp.126–141. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.3-10. [29] Shkarlet, S., Kholiavko, N., Dubyna, M. and Zhuk, O., 2019. Innovation, Education, Research Components of the Evaluation of Information Economy Development (as Exemplified by Eastern Partnership Countries). Marketing and Management of Innovations, (1), pp.70–83. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.1-06. [30] Skliar, I., 2018. Towards the assurance of transparency and quality of higher education in Ukraine: National Qualification Framework. Business Ethics and Leadership, 2(1), pp.96–105. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.2(1).96-105.2018. [31] UI GreenMetric, 2018. Overall Rankings 2018. Available from: https://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/ rankings/overall-rankings-2018. [32] United Nations, 2019. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019. New York. Available from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/ The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf. [33] United Nations and Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development, 2019. Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2019. New York: United Nations. Available from: https://developmentfinance.un.org/sites/developmentfinance.un.org/files/FSDR2019.pdf. [34] Vasilyeva, T., Bilan, S., Bagmet, K. and Seliga, R., 2020. Institutional development gap in the social sector: Cross-country analysis. Economics & Sociology, 13, pp.271–294. Available from: https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2020/13-1/17. [35] Volk, I., Artyukhov, A., Vasylieva, T. and Hordiienko, V., 2021. Quality of Education and Socio-Economic Development: Decision Making Approach for Assessing System Performance. 2021 IEEE 8th International Conference on Problems of Infocommunications, Science and Technology (PIC S&T). pp.256–260. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/ PICST54195.2021.9772207. [36] Vorontsova, A., Shvindina, H., Mayboroda, T., Mishenina, H. and Heiets, I., 2020. The impact of state regulation in a sphere of education on sustainable development of national economy. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 18(4), pp.275–288. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(4).2020.23. [37] Vorontsova, A., Vasylieva, T., Bilan, Y., Ostasz, G. and Mayboroda, T., 2020. The influence of state regulation of education for achieving the sustainable development goals: Case study of Central and Eastern European countries. Administratie si Management Public, 34, pp.6–26. 106 https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.548 https://dou.ua/lenta/articles/ukrainian-universities-2020 https://dou.ua/lenta/articles/ukrainian-universities-2020 https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2013-0040 https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.2(1).32-43.2018 https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.3-10 https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.1-06 https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.2(1).96-105.2018 https://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/rankings/overall-rankings-2018 https://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/rankings/overall-rankings-2018 https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf https://developmentfinance.un.org/sites/developmentfinance.un.org/files/FSDR2019.pdf https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2020/13-1/17 https://doi.org/10.1109/PICST54195.2021.9772207 https://doi.org/10.1109/PICST54195.2021.9772207 https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(4).2020.23 1 Introduction 2 Literature review 3 Research methodology 4 Testing the “quality of education” system and determining its socio-economic impact 5 Conclusions