‘Soviet’ in teachers’ memories and professional beliefs in Kazakhstan: points for reflection for reformers, international consultants and practitioners

Abstract

This paper is a part of a three-year study, ‘Internationalisation and reform of secondary schooling in Kazakhstan’, jointly conducted by an international team of UK- and Kazakhstan-based researchers in 2012–2014. The study was conceived as a mechanism to support education reform in the country. This was achieved through reconstructing the education policy narrative of the last two decades and understanding the effects of the newly established Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools and the Centres of Excellence in-service professional development programme on the larger system. While the focus of the study was on Kazakhstan’s educational present, the references to the previous system of education, which was often referred to as Soviet, traditional, but also successful, fundamental and the best in the world, were numerous. These continuous references to the past prompted the authors of this paper to address the questions: What memories and practices of Soviet education are still dominant in the field of education in Kazakhstan? How do these beliefs continue to shape educational debate in the country? In support of its argument, the paper draws on the literature on Soviet schooling and contemporary education reform, interview data with national and international teachers in Kazakhstan, and field observations. The resultant narrative, which brings together the analysis of educational change and changes in teachers’ beliefs, may appeal to many involved in the construction of the contemporary reform agenda.

Keywords:

• education reform
• Soviet legacies
• Soviet education
• Kazakhstan

Notes

1. The ‘Centres of Excellence’ is a three-level programme of teacher professional development jointly developed by the University of Cambridge Faculty of Education (FoE), the Centres of Excellence (CoE) and Cambridge International Examinations (CIE). The content of the programme encompasses seven areas specified by the Kazakhstani Government. These areas are: (1) new approaches to teaching and learning; (2) learning to think critically; (3) assessment for and of learning; (4) using ICT in teaching and learning; (5) teaching talented and gifted children; (6) responding to age-related differences in teaching and learning; and (7) management and leadership of learning. Each level of the programme is being delivered by FoE trainers to Kazakhstani trainers through two two-week face-to-face periods with school-based work conducted by the trainees in between.

2. www.zakon.kz/top_news/4581331-polnaja-videoversija-zhestkogo.html – ‘The video briefing of Nazarbayev’s hard conversation with the government’ (2013) (Rus.).

3. There are a number of studies by local scholars on the history of pedagogy and education in Kazakhstan. However, the majority of those studies focus on the issues of ethno-pedagogy and various ways of infusing national identity in students, rather than approaching the question of Soviet education, its legacies and ways of socialisation from a sociological perspective.

4. All interviewees are assigned letters A–Q according to the order in which they appear in the article. Responses of international teachers (Interviewees B, F, N and O) are marked as ‘international teachers’. All other responses are from the national actors. Five types of organisations in which interviews took place, (1) NIS managing company, (2) CoE training, (3) international organisation, (4) four mainstream schools (assigned letters A–D) and (5) three NIS schools (assigned letters A–C) are indicated together with the year and the month of data collection (October 2012, March 2013, February 2014 and May 2014). The gender of the respondents, subject specialism and role are not indicated as this could compromise the anonymity of the interviewees. It is worth mentioning that out of the 17 respondents cited in the paper, 10 are female and 7 are male.

5. In the original paper, Borytko (2005) uses the terms ‘technocratic’ and ‘humanitarian’, which we believe is inaccurate translation. In our opinion, ‘teacher-centred’ and ‘student-centred’ are more appropriate terms to capture the shift in philosophy and values of education.

Additional information

Funding

This paper is a result of a collaborative study between Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education and the University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. The funding for the study was provided by Nazarbayev University.