CC BY-NC-ND
29
Life Outside the Classroom: Everyday Mobility of School Students
Elizaveta Sivak, Konstantin Glazkov
Received in Elizaveta Sivak
January 2017 Research Fellow at the Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. Email: esivak@hse.ru Konstantin Glazkov Postgraduate Student, Department of Sociology, National Research University Higher School of Economics; Master of Urban Development; Lecturer at the Faculty of Social Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics. Email: glazkov.konst@ gmail.com
Address: 20 Myasnitskaya St, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation.
Abstract. A number of studies have emphasized the importance of the educational potential of cities and revealed that home district characteristics influence children's educational identity and access to educational resources. However, little attention is paid to the conditions and limits of children's access to the city environment as well as the geographies of their outdoor activities, i. e. how far from home they travel when hanging out, how this distance can change as a child grows up, how often children attend specific places, and how the geographies of their mobility depend on their personal characteristics. A survey of Moscow school students of grades 5-10 is used to explore the basic characteristics of
children's independent mobility, including their everyday mobility, i. e. frequented places and the distance to them. It is shown that children normally travel within a radius of 1 km from home; the central part of the city and the neighboring districts are visited less often than places within the home district. A comparison of everyday mobility of high- and low-performing students has proved that the proportion of children whose most frequented place is centers for after-school education is higher among high-performers. Yet, no correlation was found between the size of the "habitat" and academic performance. Moreover, places for leisure, including leisure education, of families have been described based on a survey of over 700 mothers of school students. Families with high levels of cultural capital and good financial standing have demonstrated greater diversity of shared leisure activities and comprise a higher proportion of those attending family courses, public lectures, or other urban events. Such families exploit the educational leisure opportunities provided by the city more actively than others. Keywords: school students, children in a city, children's everyday mobility, education geographies, educational leisure, geographies of unstructured leisure activities.
DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2017-2-113-133
The number of studies on geography of education has been growing recently. The focus of research includes geographical factors of education inequality reproduction. In particular, researchers exam-
ine the effects that spatially-rooted factors (social relationships, culture, material factors) can have on the educational attainment, expectations and choices of school students [Butler, Hamnett 2007; Garner, Raudenbush 1991; Raffo 2011; Kerr, Dyson, Raffo 2014; Lupton 2006], as well as the role of home-school distance and in-district school placement in education inequality reproduction and growth [Butler, Hamnett 2010]. distance from school has now become the primary means of allocating
Other studies take a broader perspective on the influence of urban environment, e. g. by investigating the positive effects of unstructured outdoor activities and the importance of environment as a "third teacher" [Matthews 2001; Strong-Wilson, Ellis 2007], as well as the influence of urban mobility on the social, cognitive and emotional development of children [Kytta 2004; Rissotto, Tonucci 2002]. Jane Jacobs has stressed repeatedly in her works that city streets are an important learning environment for children, providing a natural and healthy space for their unstructured activities [Jacobs 2011]. The importance of public life for child development [Soenen 2004] is also justified by the growing effects of various short-term social relationships that occur in "non-places", as defined by Marc Auge [Auge 1995]. On the whole, although the street and the city do not resemble learning contexts in the traditional sense, they are regarded today as an informal, or extended, learning environment [Eshach 2007].
If that is the case, what environment do school students have access to, and what does the city mean for different types of students? Most studies dedicated to the effects of spatially-rooted factors examine those districts where specific schools are situated, but the natural boundaries of spaces explored by children remain vague. One of the points in this article is that urban mobility of children, including their daily movements, has been understudied despite the fact that researchers emphasize the value of independent mobilityandthe benefits of unstructured leisure activities. In particular, research on children's mobility implies measuring the "habitat" of school students and identifying the types of frequented places.
Researchers rarely separate children into a category of their own when analyzing mobility patterns; they rather tend to use mixed-type data that is hard to divide based on age cohorts. For instance, the large-scale study The Archeology of Periphery points out that the ultra-importance of Moscow center in terms of daily commuting has been exaggerated. A considerable proportion of commutes— two thirds, according to GPS tracking data—is limited to Muscovites' home districts [Bogorov, Novikov, Serova 2013]. Only 35% of citizens travel to the city center every day, whereas 42% commute only from one suburb to anotheror use the Moscow Ring Road [Ibid.]. Studies on the relationship between children, specifically, and the urban environment investigate children's outdoor leisure activities [Bochaver, Korzun, Polivanova 2017] and the specific features of a children's
world in the city [Osorina 2004]. Meanwhile, the everyday mobility of school students has never been a subject of research to date. Special attention should be paid here to places where children and parents share their leisure time, including leisure education activities.
The focus of this study is on the structure of the urban mobility of school students, in particular on what can be defined as a children's "habitat" in terms of their everyday mobility. Differences in daily mobility are analyzed in the article depending on children's personal characteristics of age and academic attainment.
1. Street children vs children in the parental environment
The most widespread perspective on the relation between adults' and children's environments, according to Roger Cox [Cox 1996], consists in constructing children as human beings in-the-making. In this context, the lack of autonomy from parents and other adults is considered to be a normal format of preparing a child for grown-up life. The inverse approach, proposed by Jens Qvortrup [Qvortrup et al. 1994], implies isolating childhood into a period of its own and analyzing children separate from their parents. This results in a paradox: on the one hand, focus is placed on the process of growing up in subordination to adults and together with them; on the other hand, childhood has its own timeframe and its own, specifically "designed" space [Qvortrup 1995].
In real life, this paradox manifests itself in the socio-spatial landscape, which includes adjustable barriers between the children's and adults' environments [Matthews 2001]. These barriers put childhood into clearly predefined places and situations, where growing up may have varying degrees of autonomy from parents. Meanwhile, complete autonomy often implies restricted access to a place (e. g. school), which means that the periods and schedule of attendance by children and strangers are regulated. Other variants of restricting children's engagement with social life represent quasi-autonomous situations that take place with the direct participation of adults or under their (remote) supervision.
This study is premised on the opposition of two modes of children's involvement in social relationships: (1) children in the parental environment, or children inside families [Ennew 1995] and (2) street children, or children in the extended environment [Hart 1997; Matthews 1992].
The parental environment may imply more out-of-school classes and greater parental involvement in the children's education and unstructured leisure activities. A high level of parental involvement is associated with "concerted cultivation" as a cultural logic of child rearing [Lareau 2002]. Living mostly within the parental environment may improve the academic attainment of children due to greater parental involvement, active attendance in after-school classes, and leisure
education1 activities, as well as through the positive experience of interacting with professionals in formal contexts (e. g. with educators during after-school classes) [Lareau 2002].
The "children in the extended environment" mode suggests breaking the strictly regulated situations; it rests upon multiple services and opportunities offered to children by the urban environment outside the zone of parental control. The extended environment implies higher independent mobility of children and a space for their unstructured activities. On the one hand, natural growth [Lareau 2002] with a lot of unorganized spare time is regarded as reducing the educational chances of children, while on the other hand, in the absence of regulations and time structuring the urban environment may become children's "third teacher" [Matthews 2001], which will create situations necessary for them to mature and accumulate social experience. The extended environment [Ennew 1995] denotes a more large-scale space for children's unstructured outdoor activities, whereby they spend less time on after-school classes and their life is under less control. High-performing students who are loaded with homework and after-school classes probably have smaller spaces for their unstructured activities. The focus of the study in this regard was on finding out how mobility patterns differed between children with different levels of academic performance.
Two major objectives are determined for this study. The first one consists in examining the structure of children's urban mobility (ranges of explored urban environment). Robin C. Moore's conception [Moore 1986] is used to describe the everyday mobility of children. Moore identifies three ranges of explored urban environment: habitual, frequented and occasional. Habitual range is shaped around the child's home and includes local everyday destinations. Frequente-drange increases as the child grows up, depending on parents' restrictions and physical barriers. Places within the frequentedrange are usually visited during a specific season or on specific days of the week. Occasional range forms the boundary between the explored and the unexplored outdoor environment in the child's mind. As a rule, children only visit such places once under peculiar conditions. The density and spread of every range depend not only on the children's age or gender but also on the spatial configuration of the populated locality [Matthews 2001]. We are interested primarily in the habitual range and the everyday mobility within it, i. e. distances to the most frequented places, types of places, who accompanies children as they go there, and how habitual range and everyday mobility differ depending on personal characteristics (gender, age, academic attainment).
1 See, for example, [Jordan, Murray Nettles 1999; Roth, Malone, Brooks-Gunn 2010; Hansen, Larson, Dworkin 2003]; [Griffin 2004; Greene, Kisida, Bowen 2014; De Witt, Storksdieck 2008; Beghetto, Kaufman 2007]—on the effects of consistent after-school attendance on academic achievement.
The second objective consists in analyzing the differences in exploiting urban places for shared family leisure activities, including leisure education (parent-child classes, public lectures, and other urban events), between families with different characteristics (financial standing and cultural capital). There is empirical evidence that families with sustainable incomes, high professional status and great cultural capital exploit more urban opportunities than other social groups living in the same neighborhoods, which is true even for public spaces [Karsten, Felder 2015]. The parenting styles of families with high socioeconomic status imply busy after-school schedules for children [Arendell 2001; Vincent, Ball 2007; Holloway, Pimlott-Wilson 2014]. This is where a question arises: how does the access of children to leisure education differ depending on family characteristics?
2. Research A survey of students from four schools in different suburbs of Moscow method (Kapotnya, Dmitrovsky, Yaroslavsky and Yasenevo) was conducted us-2.1. Sample ing the continuous sampling method. It covered all of the students in grades 5-10 who were present on the day of the survey and whose parents had given their permission for their children to complete the survey. Out of 3500 fifth- to tenth-graders from four schools, 1711 proceeded to complete the questionnaire. After removing the empty, incomplete and invalid questionnaires, the final sample included 819 respondents (about 23% of the total student population).
A survey of parents of school students in grades 5-10 was conducted in the same schools and classes. This was also continuous: the questionnaire could be completed by any adult member of a child's family. All in all, around 3500 questionnaires were distributed either in paper form, handed to parents by their children, or as links to online questionnaires. The response rate was 24%. Most returned questionnaires (89%) were completed by mothers; only the mothers' answers were sampled for further analysis in order to ensure a higher level of sample homogeneity, resulting in a total of 749 questionnaires.
2.2. Data and The student survey was conducted using dedicated software in the ICT survey method rooms of the schools. The respondents were asked to plot their homes (to measure the home-school distance) and frequented places (apart from home and school) on a map of Moscow. Next, the students were asked to indicate how often they attended each specific place (number of times in a month) and with whom. The questionnaire was tested using a pilot survey, where children were offered to find and mark their home and school, draw their route from home to school, and indicate the frequented places on a paper map of the district (within a 1.5 km radius of the school) as well as on the map. These tasks did not present any difficulties.
Everyday mobility is hard to plot on a map. A considerable portion of daily movements are probably "purposeless" hanging out [Pyyry,
Tani 2016; Horton et al. 2014], i. e. a matter-of-course, pretty unconscious activity that is difficult to translate into distinct places. The respondents quite often marked areas that we dubbed "areas of attraction". These are areas with fuzzy boundaries (streets, metro stations, etc.), where children seem to spend time "just walking" without any destination or purpose, so the respondents indicated such places by binding them to urban place names: "my district", "Kapotnya's District No.5", "Yaroslavskoe Highway", etc.
Student attainment data was provided by the schools. The respondents were identified using codes instead of real names, so as to ensure anonymity. At the beginning of the survey, the students entered the same codes so that their data could be matched with their answers on the map.
Parents were surveyed using online or hardcopy questionnaires (whichever the school administrators believed would ensure better sample coverage).
The student and parent questionnaires were marked with the same codes. However, the low response rate (23% among students and 24% among parents) resulted in a low proportion of matching student-parent pairs (mothers' answers were available for 26% of the students only), which made using family characteristics and other parent survey variables in student survey analysis and vice versa impossible.
Home-place distance: the distance from home to each of the places that a student plotted on the map.
Distance from home to the most frequented place: students were asked to specify the number of times they visited each of the places plotted on the map over the last month; next, the most frequented place was determined and the distance to it was measured.
Type of place: with each of the places marked, students were asked an open question about what kind of place this was; the answers were encoded.
GPA: the average result of all the school grades achieved in all subjects during the academic year 2015/16.
Places attended with adults. Parentswere asked about how often they had engaged in any of the following activities together with their child over the last two weeks: street activities (sports, active street games, roller skating, cycling, etc.); walking in a park or a zoo; exhibitions, theaters, etc.; urban events and public lectures; parent-child classes; cafés and restaurants; shopping; going over to someone's house; cinema; entertainment complexes, arcade games and amusement rides.
Family's cultural capital: frequency of going to theaters, museums and exhibitions, classical music concerts in 2015 (index, the total number of times).
Family's financial standing: whether a child has a room of their own; family income (encoded ranges of average household monthly income per person).
2.3. Description of variables
Figure 1. The distribution of the common logarithm of distance to the places marked
600
Frequency-
400
200
0
2
3
4
Common logarithm of distance
3. Findings
3.1. The structure of children's urban mobility
Let us first analyze the structure of children's urban mobility by considering all the places plotted on the map, not only the most frequented ones. The distribution of distances to the places marked is non-normal, being skewed to the dots that are closer to home. Distances to places were translated to a common logarithm of distance, which was used to estimate the mean values and obtain a normal distribution. To make interpretation easier, the common logarithm values were translated to meters/kilometers after the means had been estimated. Half of the places marked are located within 870 m of their home (common logarithm of distance = 2.94, see Fig. 1). The median distance from home to the places marked by the youngest respondents, i. e. fifth-and sixth-graders, is 560 m.
Hierarchical cluster analysis with a single variable (distance to the place marked) was performed to identify the main ranges of children's mobility or group the places by their distance from home. Next, the optimal number of clusters was determined (using the "elbow method") to be 3, both for the total sample and for each of the key home districts. Figure 2 displays all the dots marked by students, divided into the identified clusters. Students marked on average three places they attended with an average frequency of eight times per month.
The first cluster includes the places that are the closest to home, on average within 650 m. These are visited by school students more often than others, on average nine times in a month2 (Table 1). This
2 The differences between the first cluster and the second and third ones are
Figure 2. Place visiting frequency (over the last month) and distance from home
Cluster:
Third
• Second
• First
20 Distance from home (km) 't!
15
10
>1" :,
!
m ■ • •
la •■:.! '
10
20
30
ililiiiiiiii:i;,iii;.iht:;........i..................i.......................I
40 50 60
Frequency of visiting (times per month)
5
0
0
Table 1. Characteristics of the clusters identified
Cluster N Average frequency of visiting (times per month) Average distance from home (km)
1 1,836 9 0.65
2 164 6 8
3 176 4.6 15
cluster is the largest one, comprising 84% of all the places marked. Such places as playgrounds and street pitches, soccer fields, sports grounds, shopping malls, stores/shops and other schools can be found statistically significantly less often in this cluster than in any other (Table 2).
The places that were included in the second cluster are situated farther from home (within 8 km on average) and visited less often 3. Finally, the third cluster includes the least visited and the most remote places. After-school classes and parks can be found statistically sig-
statistically significant both for the distance from home and for the frequency of visiting (f-test, p-value<10-5).
3 Statistically significant differences with the third cluster in the frequency of visiting (f-test, p-value=0.04) and distance (f-test, p-value<10-5).
Table 2. The distribution of types of places visited by students across clusters
Cluster Proportion of all places marked (%)
1 2 3
After-school classes 12% 21%1 5% 12
Playgrounds and street pitches 9% 2% 0% 8
Friends' or relatives' houses 6% 9% 7% 6
Shopping malls 25% 8% 9% 22
"Areas of attraction" 12% 14% 28% 13
Stores and shops 15% 5% 2% 13
Parks 10% 34% 30% 14
Sights 1% 3% 18% 2
Other schools 5% 2% 0% 4
Soccer fields / sports grounds 6% 2% 2% 6
nificantly more often in the second cluster than in the first or third ones, while the third cluster includes "areas of attraction" and sights (most often museums, theaters and Red Square) statistically significantly more often. These are places that "pull" school students out of their home districts.
As we can see, children actively explore their home districts, i. e. the playgrounds, street pitches, stores/shops and shopping malls closest to their homes. Such behavior patterns largely resemble those typical of adults aged over 40, whose mobility is also mostly restricted to their home and neighboring districts, journeys to the city center accounting for only a third of their movements [Bogorov, Novikov, Se-rova 2013]. The spatial range of this explored area is relatively short, being 650 m from home on average and not exceeding 870 m in half of the cases. The rest of the city districts remain virtually unexplored: only one in seven places marked by school students is located outside the close range, and students visit them statistically significantly less often than the places within the close range.
3.2. Habitual range: Habitual range includes the most frequented places. Half of these are distances and types of located within 800 m of home (the median value of common logarithm places of distance being 2.9, see Fig. 2).
The most frequented places include, primarily, after-school classes, playgrounds, street pitches, soccer fields, sports grounds, and shopping malls (Table 3). There are few age-related differences: sixth-and seventh-graders prefer playgrounds and pitches, while older students tend to favor shopping malls (the mean age in these cohorts be-
Figure 3. The distribution of the common logarithm of distance from home to the most frequented places
Frequency
200 ................................................................................................................
150
100
50
0 ............................................................................................................................
0 2 4 6 Common logarithm of distance
Table 3. Habitual range: characteristics of the most frequented places (the largest categories)
Percentage of respondents (%) Mean distance from home to the place (km) N
After-school classes 21 1.01 139
Playgrounds, street pitches, sports grounds and soccer fields 17 0.33 116
Shopping malls 14 2.2 92
"Areas of attraction" 13 1.85 86
Stores and shops 11 0.47 73
Parks 11 1.89 75
Friends' or relatives' houses 7 3.56 45
Other schools 6 0.35 40
ing 13.3 and 14 years, respectively). The results obtained confirm the existing findings that shopping malls are the new hangoutplaces for children [Pyyry, Tani 2016].
A positive correlation is revealed between student age and distance to the most frequented place, yet the correlation coefficient is low (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.19, p<0.0001). Age has a statistically significant influence on the range of "habitat", but the lat-
Table 4. Academic attainment and types of the most frequented places
Type of place GPA N Standard deviation
After-school classes 4.17 111 0.57
Playgrounds, street pitches, sports grounds and soccer fields 3.96 95 0.52
Friends' or relatives' houses 3.88 34 0.51
Shopping malls 3.96 76 0.63
"Areas of attraction" 4.01 73 0.66
Stores and shops 3.92 59 0.59
Parks 3.71 52 0.65
Other schools 3.95 29 0.66
ter increases insignificantly as children grow up (in the age cohort of 11-16 years).
No relation was found between distance to the most frequented place and academic attainment. Therefore, the size of "habitat", if we define "habitat" as restricted to the most frequented places, does not differ depending on academic performance or age (in the age cohort of 11-16 years).
Statistically significant differences are observed in the frequency of visiting different types of places depending on academic attainment of school students (Table 4). After-school classes account for a higher proportion of the most frequented places among higher-performing respondents. The mean academic attainment of children who indicated after-school classes as their most frequented places is 4.23 grade points, as compared to 3.99 among students attending other types of places more often (statistically significant differences, p<0.0001).
Meanwhile, the overall number of places plotted on the map is not smaller among high-performers than among other respondents. On the contrary, there is a weak yet significant positive correlation between academic performance and the number of places marked (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.13, p<0.005). It can therefore be assumed that students with better academic performance have more time-structuring dots on the map (after-school classes), but it does not mean that their urban mobility patterns are less diverse.
Beside the distance from home and the types of places, we were also interested in who accompanied children to the places they marked on the map. It transpires that children visit about 33% of the places on their own, 21% with their parents or other adult family members, and the rest of the places with their friends orsiblings (47%). Shopping malls, stores/shops and parks appear to be the most pop-
Table 5. Mean distances to frequented places depending on whom students attend them with
N Mean distance from home (km)
Onone'sown 219 0.77
With friends 326 0.82
With parents / other adult family members 147 2.74
Table 6. Differences in academic attainment between children categories identified based on whom they visit their most frequented place with
On one's own With friends, siblings or cousins With parents
Grades 5-7 4.05 4.02 4.28
Grades 8-10 3.90 3.97 4.14
ular places visited together with parents. The mean distance to the places visited with parents is statistically significantly greater than the distance to places visited with friends or on one's own4 (Table 5), these differences being preserved in high school (grades 8-10).
High-performing students go out more often with their parents, which is true for various age cohorts (Table 6). Students were divided into two age cohorts (grades 5-7 and 8-10), as academic attainment normally declines with growing up, and so does the proportion of places visited with parents. Both cohorts demonstrate statistically significant differences between those who visit their most frequented place on their own and those who do it with their parents (i-test, p=0.013 for students in grades 5-7, p=0.037 for students in grades 8-10). There are also differences among fifth- to seventh-graders between those who visit this place with their friends and those who do so with their parents (i-test, p=0.003).
3.3. Shared family Shopping malls and parks/zoos are the most popular places for
activities: differences depending on cultural capital and financial standing
shared family leisure time. On the whole, the higher cultural capital of a family, the more shared activities parents and childrenengage in (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.292, p<0.0001). The number of shared leisure activities also correlates with a family's financial standing, being statistically significantly higher in families where chil-
4 The differences were assessed using the f-test, p<0.0001 for children in grades 5-7 and p=0.001 for children in grades 8-10.
Table 7. Shared family leisure activities
Percentage of respondents (%)
Stores/shops and shopping malls 66
Parks and zoos 41
Street activities 36
Going to someone's house together 35
Cafés and restaurants 35
Cinema 33
Exhibitions, theaters, etc. 19
Entertainment complexes, arcade games and amusement rides 11
Urban events and public lectures 9
Parent-child classes 3
dren have a room of their own (2.97, as compared to the mean value of 2.64; i-test, p=0.02).
A relatively small percentage of the respondents mentioned leisure education activities: 19% have been to exhibitions or theaters; 9% have attended urban events, and 3% have engaged in some parent-child classes.
The effects of cultural capital are perceptible in nearly all types of shared leisure activities, the level of cultural capital being higher among those who mentioned a specific shared leisure activity than among those who did not, which is true for nearly all types of such activities (except entertainment complexes, stores/shops and shopping malls). However, differences in financial standing were only observed among families who mentioned three types of shared leisure activities with different frequency: parks/zoos, exhibitions and theaters, and entertainment complexes (and only in one indicator of financial standing, namely whether a child has a room of their own or not).
These results are consistent with previous findings that social class differences affect not only the likelihood of attending after-school classes (due to parents' willingness to invest in education, and availability of resources to invest [Vincent, Ball 2007; Lareau 2002; Karsten 2014]) but also the ways families share their leisure time in the city: households with higher socioeconomic status and cultural capital exploit urban opportunities more actively than other social groups [Karsten 1998; Karsten, Felder 2015].
4. Conclusion This study was meant to investigate the extended learning environment of modern school students. There is no doubt that children develop and learn not only in various educational institutions but outside of them as well; besides, numerous studies report positive effects of urban mobility [Kytta 2004; Rissotto, Tonucci 2002] or emphasize the importance of the educational potential of the urban environment [Matthews 2001; Soenen 2004; Jacobs 2011]. However, the everyday mobility of Russian children still remains understudied.
Our research was focused on investigating the characteristics of urban mobility, including daily movements, of fifth- to tenth-graders from four Moscow schools located in different suburbs, namely, the distance to the most frequented places, the types of such places, and whom children visit them with. It has been established that children actively explore their home districts within a radius of about 1 km from home, while visiting the neighboring districts and the city center much less frequently. The "habitat" (distance from home to the most frequented place) changes little as children grow up, at least in the cohort surveyed (11-16 years).
High-performers indicate after-school classes as their most frequented places more often and are more likely to go out with their parents. These differences are typical of different age cohorts, which fits into the cultural logic of "concerted cultivation". Meanwhile, the overall number of places marked by high-performing students is at least the same as marked by other respondents (there is a weak but significant positive correlation between academic attainment and the number of places marked). The distance to the most frequented places does not differ depending on student performance. Therefore, the available data does not provide strong evidence that high academic performance predicts less active exploration of the urban environment.
Another goal of this research was to describe the places for shared family leisure activities, including leisure education (parent-child classes, public lectures, and other urban events). The survey of mothers of fifth- to tenth-graders from the same schools was used to demonstrate that the frequency of engaging into nearly all shared activities, including leisure education, depends on the cultural capital of a family.
Naturally, the urban mobility of children needs to be analyzed in more detail and on a larger sample. In particular, this is necessary to find out how children with different levels of academic achievement explore the city: although no clear differences in the distance to the most frequented places were revealed between higher- and lower-performing students, they could still be found in the time spent outdoors, ways of engaging with the environment, its perception, and the experience obtained. Another prospective avenue of research consists in drilling down on the joint effects of social class and city district on children's exploration of the urban environment. The existing
studies devoted to the influence of family characteristics on city exploration seem to put the factor of these effects on the back burner. In a situation where learning environment is growing beyond school and traditional after-school classes, research on children's everyday urban mobility is essential to understanding the differences in the educational opportunities of children depending on their family characteristics and where they live.
References Arendell T. (2001) The New Care Work of Middle-Class Mothers. Minding the Time in Family Experience: Emerging Perspectives and Issues (ed. K. Daly), Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 163-204. Augé M. (1995) Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermoderni-ty. London: Verso.
Beghetto R. A., Kaufman J. C. (2007) Toward a Broader Conception of Creativity: A Case for "Mini-c" Creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, vol.1, no 2, pp. 73-79. Bochaver A., Korzun A., Polivanova K. (2017) Ulichny dosug detey i podrostkov [Outdoor Leisure Activities of Children and Adolescents]. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics (in print). Bogorov V., Novikov A., Serova E. (2013) Samopoznanie goroda [Self-Cognition of the city]. Arkheologiya periferii [The Archaeology of the Periphery], Moscow: Moscow Urban Forum, pp. 382-407. Butler T., Hamnett C. (2007) The Geography of Education: Introduction. Urban
Studies, vol. 44, no 7, pp. 1161-1174. Butler T., Hamnett C. (2010) You Take What You Are Given: The Limits to Parental Choice in Education in East London. Environment and Planning A, vol. 42, no10, pp. 2431-2450. Cox R. (1996) Shaping Childhood: Themes of Uncertainty in the History of Adult-
Child Relationships. London: Routledge. DeWitt J., Storksdieck M. (2008) A Short Review of School Field Trips: Key Findings from the Past and Implications for the Future. Visitor Studies, vol. 11, no 2, pp. 181-197.
Ennew J. (1995) 'Outside Childhood: Street Children's Rights'. The Handbook of Children's Rights: Comparative Policy and Practice (ed. B. Franklin), London: Routledge, pp. 201-215. Eshach H. (2007) Bridging In-School and Out-Of-School Learning: Formal, Non-Formal, and Informal Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 16, no 2, pp. 171-190. Garner C. L., Raudenbush S. W. (1991) Neighborhood Effects on Educational Attainment: A Multilevel Analysis. Sociology of Education, vol. 64, no 4, pp. 251-262.
Greene J. P., Kisida B., Bowen D. H. (2014) The Educational Value of Field Trips.
Education Next, vol. 14, no 1, pp. 78-86. Griffin J. (2004) Research on Students and Museums: Looking More Closely at the Students in School Groups. Science Education, vol. 88, no 1, pp. 59-70. Hansen D. M., Larson R. W., Dworkin J. B. (2003) What Adolescents Learn in Organized Youth Activities: A Survey of Self-Reported Developmental Experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, vol. 13, no 1, pp. 25-55. Hart R. (1997) Children's Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. New York/London: Earthscan/UNICEF. Holloway S. L., Pimlott-Wilson H. (2014) Enriching Children, Institutionalizing Childhood? Geographies of Play, Extracurricular Activities, and Parenting
in England. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 104, no 3, pp. 613-627.
Horton J., Christensen P., Kraftl P., Hadfield-Hill S. (2014) 'Walking... Just Walking': How Children and Young People's Everyday Pedestrian Practices Matter. Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 15, no 1, pp. 94-115.
Jacobs J. (2011) Smert i zhizn bolshikh amerikanskikh gorodov [The Death and Life of Great American Cities], Moscow: Novoe izdatelstvo.
Jordan W. J., Murray Nettles S. (1999) How Students Invest Their Time Outside of School: Effects on School-Related Outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, vol. 3, no 4, pp. 217-243.
Karsten L. (1998) Growing Up in Amsterdam: Differentiation and Segregation in Children's Daily Lives. Urban Studies, vol. 35, no 3, pp. 565-581.
Karsten L. (2014) Middle-Class Childhood and Parenting Culture in High-Rise Hong Kong: On Scheduled Lives, the School Trap and a New Urban Idyll. Children's Geographies, vol. 13, no 5, pp. 556-570.
Karsten L., Felder N. (2015) Parents and Children Consuming the City: Geographies of Family Outings Across Class. Annals of Leisure Research, vol. 18, no 2, pp. 205-218.
Kerr K., Dyson A., Raffo C. (2014) Education, Disadvantage and Place: Making the Local Matter. Chicago: Policy Press.
Kytta M. (2004) The Extent of Children's Independent Mobility and the Number of Actualized Affordances as Criteria for Child-Friendly Environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 24, no 2, pp. 179-198.
Lareau A. (2002) Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families. American Sociological Review, vol. 67, no 5, pp. 747-776.
Lupton R. (2006) How Does Place Affect Education? Going Places: Neighbourhood, Ethnicity and Social Mobility (ed. S. Delorenzi), London: IPPR, pp. 5971.
Matthews H. (1992) Making Sense of Place: Children's Understanding of Large-Scale Environments. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Matthews H. (2001) Children and Community Regeneration. London: Save the Children.
Moore R. (1986) Childhood's Domain: Play and Play Space in Child Development. London: Croom Helm.
Osorina M. (2016) Sekretny mir detey v prostranstve mira vzroslykh [The Secret World of Children in the Adult Environment], Saint Petersburg: Piter.
Pyyry N., Tani S. (2016) Young Peoples Play With Urban Public Space: Geographies of Hanging Out. Geographies of Children and Young People. Play and Recreation, Health and Wellbeing, vol. 9, pp. 193-210.
Qvortrup J. (1995) Childhood and Modern Society: A Paradoxical Relationship. Childhood and Parenthood (eds J. Brannen, M. O'Brien), London: Institute of Education, pp. 189-198.
Qvortrup J., Bardy M., Sgritta G., Wintersberger H. (eds) (1994) Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics. Aldershot: Avebury Press.
Raffo C. (2011) Educational Equity in Poor Urban Contexts-Exploring Issues of Place/Space and Young People's Identity and Agency. British Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 59, no 1, pp. 1-19.
Rissotto A., Tonucci F. (2002) Freedom of Movement and Environmental Knowledge in Elementary School Children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 22, no 1-2, pp. 65-77.
Roth J. L., Malone L. M., Brooks-Gunn J. (2010) Does the Amount of Participation in Afterschool Programs Relate to Developmental Outcomes? A Review of the Literature. American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 45, no 3-4, pp. 310-324.
Soenen R. (2004) A Relational Approach on Children in the City: The Importance of Public Space, Non-Places and Ephemeral Relationships for Learning. Identity, Agency and Social Institutions in Educational Ethnography, vol. 10, no 1, pp. 1-20.
Strong-Wilson T., Ellis J. (2007) Children and Place: Reggio Emilia's Environment as Third Teacher. Theory into Practice, vol. 46, no 1, pp. 40-47.
Vincent C., Ball S. J. (2007) Making Up the Middle-Class Child: Families, Activities and Class Dispositions. Sociology, vol. 41, no 6, pp. 1061-1077.
