As Kazakhstan grapples with a myriad of challenges contributing to its longstanding educational inequality, the role of international organizations, the government, and various local stakeholders takes centre stage. From infrastructural shortcomings and outdated technology to rampant corruption and subpar teacher training, the hurdles are many and multifaceted. While efforts are being made at the government and international levels, the active engagement of civil society, the media, the business community, and experts is paramount for a well-rounded solution. Yet, hurdles persist – active participation is lacking, private sector investment is limited, the media is plagued with sensationalism, and the culture of open expert dialogues is still in its infancy. This interview sheds light on the intricate web of challenges and the shared responsibilities of all stakeholders in bridging the educational divide in Kazakhstan.
Aigerim Kopeyeva is an educational researcher and analyst, currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Cambridge with a focus on factors contributing to regional inequality in student achievement in Kazakhstan. Her professional experience includes coordinating international large-scale assessments in education and research projects on rural school support, teacher motivation and Kazakhstan indicators in international educational assessments (JSC Taldau, AEO Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, NGO Beles). In 2019, she completed a fellowship at The George Washington University (Central Asia Program), where she pioneered research on the reasons behind the low academic performance of students in different regions of Kazakhstan. She obtained her MA in Education Management from King’s College London (2015).
CABAR.asia: As Kazakhstan approaches its Day of Knowledge on September 1st, a glaring issue looms large – educational inequality within its school system. So, what’s at the heart of this problem and why is it vital for us to discuss it?
Addressing educational disparity in Kazakhstan means delving beyond superficial symptoms and focusing on the root issues. The real challenges stem from unequal access to quality education, socio-economic disparities that span across the nation and affect various segments of society, gaps in school resources and infrastructure, and differing levels of regional development. In essence, the spectrum of inequality is broad and multifaceted. Disparities in student learning are merely a reflection of these deep-seated problems.
Now is the time to address educational inequality in Kazakhstan, as recent events present a unique window of opportunity for stakeholders to voice their concerns and contribute innovative ideas. There’s a heightened likelihood that these voices will be heard, given the shift in political discourse. Whereas previous conversations often focused on past achievements and touted accomplishments, the narrative has shifted to spotlight areas in need of improvement. This provides a favourable climate for educational professionals and concerned citizens to voice their concerns and advocate for change.
The importance of addressing educational inequality cannot be overstated.
The ripple effects of educational inequality are clear to see, but effectively addressing them requires a deep dive into the underlying causes and contributing factors. Research indicates that the school environment isn’t always the primary driver of educational disparities. In developing countries, including Kazakhstan, students’ academic outcomes are more often shaped by factors such as their family’s socio-economic status, their area of residence, and other specific elements. In order to truly combat educational inequality, it’s essential to examine and address these broader influences.
Why do I personally delve into and promote the topic of educational inequality? The long-term impacts of academic lag, which may only become fully apparent decades down the line, make it impossible to ignore this pressing issue. It is simply not acceptable to stand by as a child’s academic trajectory is pre-determined based on the region they are born in, with limits set on the knowledge they can acquire by graduation. Although it’s not a complete solution, the problem of certain student groups falling behind can largely be addressed at the preschool and secondary education levels. Knowing that there’s an opportunity to mitigate these issues at the outset of a child’s educational journey makes it unethical for professionals in the education sector and related industries to remain silent.
Moreover, there’s a significant gap in Kazakhstan when it comes to academic research and a scientific evidence base – not just relying on international experiences, but data collected that considers our unique context – in all sectors, including education. Addressing these shortcomings is essential to creating a more equitable educational landscape.
CABAR.asia: In Kazakhstan, ensuring universal access to school education is a state responsibility. CABAR.asia has been shedding light on the issue of school education in Central Asian countries for years. It’s a well-known problem, and key decision-makers are likely well-informed about its scale. Could you share some insights into specific initiatives, reforms, or government programs that are underway to address this critical issue?
The issue of educational inequality is acknowledged within both the state and quasi-state sectors in Kazakhstan, and it is likely that this understanding has been present for some time. The lack of broad public discussion on these matters in the past might create the impression that such problems did not exist previously, but that’s far from the case. In fact, the relevant ministries have been actively working with data for years, distinguishing Kazakhstan from other Central Asian nations in this regard. Since the 1990s, the country has maintained a complex data collection system for education, breaking down information by school, education level, academic performance, region, and other factors. Now, the National Education Database (NEBD) of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan enables the tracking of numerous indicators over time, further aiding efforts to address educational disparities.
Over the years, Kazakhstan has developed a culture of closed-door discussions regarding the issue of educational inequality—a defensive reaction, in many ways. Partly, this may stem from a reluctance to publicly admit to problematic areas, fearing strong public backlash. There’s also a hint of paternalism—a belief that “we know better.” However, based on my observations, this approach is changing. In the past five years, there has been a noticeable shift toward examining educational inequality more openly, with both state organizations and NGOs showing increased interest in the topic. This is largely driven by the prioritization of international research and the acquisition of a wealth of data. This influx of information is crucial for informed decision-making, strategy development, and program planning, ensuring that efforts to combat educational inequality are grounded in real data.
In parallel, a particular mode of communication has emerged among some vocal members of society. This approach often involves attacking any initiative without careful critical analysis or examination of research data, a practice that can be characterized as populist.
As for efforts to tackle educational inequality, it is worth noting that Kazakhstan’s society generally has a high level of awareness and trust in international studies, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), among others. These respected studies play a significant role in shaping the conversation on educational inequality and influencing initiatives to address the issue.
However, it’s important to recognize that in Kazakhstan, we often interpret the results of international studies like PISA and TIMSS in a rather one-sided and superficial way – primarily focusing on country rankings. These studies, in fact, offer a wealth of data for analysis. For instance, they provide insights into the performance of students from different socioeconomic backgrounds in subjects like mathematics or reading. They explore the correlation between parents’ education levels and student performance and reveal differences in knowledge levels between urban and rural students. If regional data is available, comparisons can be made between individual regions, or between student success based on factors like language of instruction or the value placed on education by parents. Interestingly, following the release of the PISA 2018 results, discussions on regional inequality in education have finally started to gain traction in our country.
Kazakhstan’s participation in six different international studies, including PISA for schools, is unprecedented in Central Asia. Thousands of schools in Kazakhstan are involved in these studies. With more than seven thousand schools across the country, about a thousand take part in the PISA test annually. These schools will receive individualized analyses of key indicators that should serve as the foundation for future educational strategies. When it comes to data collection in the education sector, Kazakhstan is certainly making significant strides.
Regarding specific programs and initiatives aimed at addressing educational inequality, I’d like to focus on the quality of their development rather than listing them. I delved into the topic of regional education strategy during a fellowship in Washington in 2019. Each region in Kazakhstan was expected to have its own unique education strategy. At that time, there still was South Kazakhstan administrative region (now divided into Shymkent city and Turkestan region). When I reviewed the strategy for the South Kazakhstan region, I found that the education development plan relied heavily on the Program for the Development of Regions, which, in turn, referenced the State Program for the Development of Education and Science (SPES). Essentially, these documents were cross-referencing each other, but in the end, the South Kazakhstan region didn’t have its own unique strategy; it merely mirrored the State Program. I suspect this wasn’t an isolated case. This situation reflects the level of responsibility and professionalism of those who work on these documents. While there is understanding and there are initiatives, the formulation and execution of such plans often leave much to be desired. Fortunately, there’s a shift away from policy-based evidence-making towards evidence-based policymaking. At least, that’s my hope.
CABAR.asia: What efforts are being made by multilateral institutions to combat this issue? Is there support from international organizations for Kazakhstan’s efforts to address educational inequality?
International organizations, respected for their authority, find a receptive audience in Kazakhstan. Yet, their recommendations often echo familiar issues and rhetoric. These well-worn insights are repackaged in an appealing format. Nonetheless, their voices serve as crucial validation for local perspectives. If an ordinary Kazakhstani analyst were to raise concerns about regional education disparities, they might not receive much attention. However, backing from data provided by respected entities like the OECD can lend credence to their statements.
CABAR.asia: What are the key problems in education today, apart from inequality, that indirectly or directly affect it?
Infrastructure quality is a fundamental yet often overlooked contributor to educational inequality. My firsthand experiences during field research in four regions of Kazakhstan underscored the impact of infrastructural deficiencies on education. In one small village, the demolition of a TV tower after inclement weather left the entire community without electricity and internet for several days. Locals stated that such disruptions were routine. In circumstances like these, one can’t help but wonder, how are children expected to complete homework and continue their studies?
Access to modern technology and the Internet remains a major challenge in Kazakhstan’s schools, especially in rural areas. The outdated computers and unreliable Internet connections present significant barriers to students’ ability to learn effectively. Despite these hurdles, efforts to improve the situation are underway, with great anticipation surrounding the “Comfortable School” project, which aims to build numerous new schools across the region.
Another significant issue plaguing Kazakhstan’s education system is the quality of teacher training. Recent events have highlighted some alarming trends. The introduction of a qualification test for teachers, designed to assess their capabilities, has been marred by cases of corruption. There have been reports of teachers paying testing centres, enabling IT specialists to manipulate test results in their favour. These cases are deeply concerning for several reasons.
Firstly, they reveal that some teachers may lack the necessary knowledge and skills to pass the tests on their own, raising questions about the quality of their university education. Secondly, the willingness to resort to dishonest practices calls into question the legal and financial literacy of these educators. Finally, these instances highlight a lack of civic duty and responsibility among some teachers.
Addressing the shortcomings in teacher training is essential to ensure that educators are equipped with the knowledge and skills they need to provide quality education. This, in turn, is the key to addressing broader issues of educational inequality in Kazakhstan.
Corruption in education, a glaring issue that regularly dominates headlines, stands as a significant obstacle to progress. It’s a topic that needs little introduction, as most are well aware of its pervasive effects. The pillars of educational success — the calibre of teachers, the quality of the schools, and the societal context in which students grow — are all affected by this issue. Together, they shape the landscape of educational access and quality in the country. Addressing these interconnected elements is critical for ensuring that every student can reach their full potential and have equal access to quality education.
CABAR.asia: Amid the ongoing debate about inequality in education, the Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) have come under scrutiny. Critics argue that these schools, often seen as elite institutions, exacerbate the issue. How much do the privilege and elitism associated with such schools contribute to the widening gap in access to quality secondary education?
In the ongoing debate about NIS (Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools), it’s essential to first define what we mean by an “elite educational institution.” Despite what some might think, NIS does not qualify as elite by my standards. True elite schools, like those at the level of Eton, are the ones that are practically inaccessible to the average person. Take a hypothetical student from a village in the Turkestan region – they wouldn’t have a chance of attending such a school, as it’s essentially a club reserved for the elite.
In the conversation about the accessibility of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) and the Bolashak program (a presidential scholarship), there are persistent misconceptions among the general public. These misunderstandings are often fueled by hearsay and misinterpretation of success stories that circulate in the media, suggesting that Bolashak graduates are invariably connected to privileged or influential families.
However, the procedures for entering NIS or the Bolashak program are, in fact, quite transparent and open to all citizens of Kazakhstan without exception. This fact often goes unnoticed, overshadowed by the prevailing narrative of exclusivity.
It’s important to note that the misconception of elitism at NIS is likely due to the high standards of entry rather than any actual favouritism. Indeed, NIS is stringent in its selection process, adhering to a meritocratic approach. The best students tend to gravitate towards the institution, but that doesn’t mean NIS is the only option for quality education in Kazakhstan. Other respected schools, such as Bilim-innovation Lyceums and Daryn, provide similarly high-level education.
A telling example of NIS’s transparency is an incident in which a school, upon learning that the Unified National Testing (UNT) would take place at NIS, saw a dramatic decrease in applicants for the Altyn Belgi designation. The reasoning behind this was simple: NIS’s testing procedures are meticulously designed to meet international standards, making cheating impossible.
In summary, the perception of NIS as elitist stems mostly from a misunderstanding of the rigour and high standards involved in the selection process. Far from being an exclusive club, NIS is open to all who can meet its requirements, and it stands as just one of several esteemed educational institutions in Kazakhstan.
When it comes to the pressing issue of growing inequality and the alleged role Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) might play in exacerbating this divide, it’s essential to approach the matter from a nuanced perspective. Pitting one group of students against another – namely, those with unique intellectual needs against those lacking the socio-economic means to attend elite schools – is not only an oversimplification but also an unproductive narrative. We mustn’t fall into the trap of deeming certain students more deserving than others.
There’s a clear rationale for having specialized institutions for gifted students. In a typical school setting where classrooms might consist of thirty students or more, it’s virtually impossible to cater to a gifted student’s specialized needs, such as advanced courses in subjects like physics or math or opportunities to participate in international olympiads. In such scenarios, educators are caught in a conundrum: cater to one exceptional student or address the needs of the other 29?
That said, our focus shouldn’t be singular. It’s feasible and imperative to allocate resources to both gifted programs and mainstream educational institutions. This isn’t a binary issue; both institutions hold value and merit. While every school might not receive NIS-level funding, they all deserve budgets that reflect the realities and demands of their specific educational environments.
It’s crucial to remember that every society has an intellectual vanguard – those who will drive innovation, advanced technologies, and cutting-edge developments in a wide range of fields. These individuals are essential for propelling science-intensive industries forward, demanding unique mindsets and character traits. This isn’t about dividing society into so-called “first-rate” and “second-rate,” as some media outlets might dramatize, but rather recognizing the need for individuals prepared for demanding workloads. Just as artists and creatives require tailored environments to flourish, so too do those with exceptional intellectual abilities.
The notion of shutting down specialized schools for gifted students and reallocating resources among the broader education system in pursuit of equality is an overly simplistic and naive approach. While equitable access to education is vital, there’s an equally pressing need to nurture exceptional talent capable of driving future progress.
CABAR.asia: Beyond government intervention, who else holds the key to addressing the persistent issue of unequal access to quality education in Kazakhstan? How do civil society organizations, the media, the business community, and subject matter experts fit into the solution?
Given these conditions, it’s no surprise that we find ourselves in the current situation. However, the quest for quality education should be a shared responsibility that resonates with every citizen. Parents, in particular, wield substantial influence, and their involvement in school affairs can be a powerful force for change. Mechanisms for feedback, such as parent committees, boards of trustees, and school and classroom meetings, are already in place. The challenge lies in fostering active participation in these channels.
In the realm of business, the prevailing wisdom is simple: invest in education. Naturally, the state holds the ultimate authority, but it doesn’t always wield its power as nimbly or efficiently as business can. Take, for instance, a high-profile entrepreneur who recently launched a series of schools in both Borovoye and Astana. This represents not only a tangible move but also an accelerated one, once you factor out certain bureaucratic and resource considerations.
There’s a compelling rationale for businesses to cultivate human capital in their regions. The calibre of their future workforce – those who will ultimately contribute to their enterprises – hinges on this investment. It’s worth noting that at the levels of technical and vocational training, as well as higher education, the voice of business already resonates, largely because employer unions exist to place orders for specialized talent. Yet, when it comes to secondary education, the story changes. Businesses tend to exclusively establish schools for affluent segments of society and, to a lesser extent, for gifted students. Beyond this, there’s little additional investment from the private sector.
That’s why it’s all the more noteworthy that organizations like Teach for Kazakhstan have successfully garnered support from major benefactors. It’s a promising sign that progress is already underway.
When it comes to the media landscape, there’s a clear call for greater responsibility among journalists in terms of their coverage, sourcing, and presentation of various topics. However, it would be a mistake to expect sweeping changes anytime soon. A select few publications stand out for their respect for their audience and refusal to indulge in sensationalism. They’re the rare exceptions in an industry rife with overblown headlines and scant analytical depth.
When dissecting the role of ‘experts’, we need to tread with specificity. The title ‘educational expert,’ often attributed to individuals like myself and my peers, mirrors that of a ‘medical expert.’ Yet, just as medicine branches into myriad specializations, so too does education. It’s a diverse field; an expert in preschool education, for instance, might lack depth in understanding per capita financing issues. Hence, as in all spheres, wielding expertise mandates a rigorous adherence to professional ethics, especially when rendering judgments.
In our nation, we’re witnessing the nascent stages of fostering a culture for open expert dialogues within the educational sector. Emerging are authoritative voices – those armed with specialized education, degrees, and a penchant for data analysis. Notably, over the past half-decade, governmental entities have shifted towards a more transparent approach, actively seeking expertise, soliciting advice, and the like. This evolution underscores the need for experts to not merely relegate their studies or theses to dusty shelves post-defence, but to champion their insights and remain actively engaged in their respective fields.
Main image by Freepik.