четверг, 4 марта 2010 г.

My Paper For Kimep

Here is the paper that I wrote for this months conference in Almaty. I hope you guys like it. As always, the opinions presented are my own, and not those of the Peace Corps or the US government.

Learning Together: Integrated Public Education in Kazakhstan

McKenzie Clark
Manshuk Mametova Humanitarian College, Kazakhstan
mck.clark@gmail.com


1. Introduction

It has been said, “variety is the spice of life.” In other words, difference and diversity make life worth living. In fact, for many countries, including Kazakhstan and the United States, a diverse population is fundamental to their success and development. However, while diversity is important, there must also be something that ties the various groups together lest there be conflict and strife. For the United States and other developed countries, this unifying force is an integrated public education system, and if Kazakhstan is serious about becoming one of the top fifty nations by 2030, it is time for it to follow their example. An integrated education system will help Kazakhstan to preserve its renowned atmosphere of inter-ethnic cooperation, assist in the creation of a national “Kazakhstani” identity, and give students the time an opportunity to study the additional subjects that are quickly becoming a necessity for success in a more competitive 21st century world.

2. Inter-Ethnic Cooperation

At first glance, the connection between the educational system and relations between ethnic groups might seem tenuous, but the truth is that having an integrated public educated system is vital to good inter-ethnic relations. After all, by its very definition, an integrated educational system is about bringing people from different groups together. Segregated schools, on the other hand, divide people. An integrated education system brings people together in two important ways, by forcing students from different groups to spend time together and by guaranteeing everyone an equal opportunity for education. Obvious? Perhaps. But the importance of these two methods for building bridges of friendship and cooperation across cultural and linguistic divides cannot be overstated.

It is an unfortunate tendency of human nature to crowd together with people like you and avoid those that are different . During ancient times, when the largest social units were tribes and city-states, such behavior kept us safe, but in a world of countries with large, multi-ethnic populations, the practice can lead to friction and discord. Thus, for peace and the health of the state, people from different groups occasionally need to be forced to spend time together so that they can get to know each other. Integrated education is one of the most effective methods for doing this because unlike other forms of forced togetherness, the “captive audience” is made up of young people. Adults are the proverbial “old dog.” They are set in their ways and it is difficult for them to digest new information, especially if that information goes against their established worldview. Children, on the other hand, are open-minded and impressionable . They have fewer established prejudices, and have no problem with changing their minds when presented with new information or experience. When children from different groups are educated together, they quickly form friendships across ethnic and cultural lines, and when these friendships are nurtured through years of common schooling, a diverse population becomes joined by bonds of affection and cooperation rather than divided by prejudice and distrust.

An even more important way that integrated schools bring people from different ethnic groups together is through its promise of an equal opportunity for education and success. A prime example of this comes from United States history. For the one hundred years between the end of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, segregation between races was the law of the land. Blacks and whites ate at different restaurants, rode in different sections on buses and trains, and studied at different schools and universities . The schools were supposedly “separate but equal,” but that was hardly the case. In truth, schools for African Americans were almost always underfunded and overcrowded. This left many African-Americans undereducated and unable to compete with whites for highly skilled and well-paid work, marginalizing them politically and economically for decades. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court eventually recognized that not only was the separate but equal doctrine not working, but that the separate facilities were inherently unequal, and ruled the entire concept unconstitutional , but America is still living down this shameful legacy. To be sure, Kazakhstan’s system of separate schools is not as plagued by racism and discrimination as America’s education system under Jim Crow, but “separate but equal” is still an oxymoron, and separate schools will always lead to discrimination and inequality. In theory, it might appear to be enlightened and culturally sensitive, but having separate schools for different ethnic groups quickly reduces segments of the population to second-class citizens. Inevitably, one type of school will get more or less funding due to political or social factors, or else students will receive different educations based on the cultural sympathies and interests of teachers and administrators until eventually Kazakhstan finds itself in the same situation that America found itself in 1963, with a divided and angry population .

It is doubtful that anyone can argue that educating the youth together is an effective method of bringing together a diverse population, but perhaps fans of Kazakhstan’s current educational system would claim that other methods of bringing the population together are just as effective. The existence of alternative methods is unquestionable, jury duty and military service are just two examples, but whether or not they are as effective as an integrated education system most certainly is. Although members of 150 different ethnic groups call Kazakhstan home, it would be an overstatement to claim that they really live together. For example, Kazakhs and Uzbeks live predominately in the southern part of Kazakhstan while Russians live predominately in the north . Furthermore, even when the populations are more mixed, like in the large urban areas of Almaty, Karaganda, or Astana, populations can still form their communities by living close together and going to the school for their ethnic or language group. Granted, Kazakhstan’s ethnic groups do get along well, especially in comparison with other former Soviet Republics, but isolationism and clannishness can lead to suspicion and conflict, especially during shifts of the status quo. Kazakhstan must be wary that as the population grows and shifts relationships between ethnic groups that were once cordial do not become strained. For that reason, it is crucial that Kazakhstan begin educating all of its young citizens in integrated schools regardless of their ethnicity. Only then will there be true bonds of friendship between groups that cannot be broken whenever it is no longer convenient.

Proponents of the current system would also argue that Kazakhstan is not like America, and that its lawmakers and educators are impartial in regards to funding and standards. Even if that is the case though, there is still the problem of the grass always being greener on the other side of the fence. People will believe, accurately or not, that students at one type of school have it better than students at the other. By educating students together, regardless of ethnicity or first language, Kazakhstan can guarantee that lawmakers and educators make truly race-blind decisions regarding funding and standards and reject claims that one ethnic group or another is being marginalized. Furthermore, the equality of education that results from the integrated system will ensure that students from every ethnic group will be ready to work together equally for the development and success of Kazakhstan, a shared task that will bring the various peoples that make up the nation of Kazakhstan even closer together.

3. A Collective National Identity

For an American, one of the most curious things about Kazakhstan is the way that locals view themselves, particularly in terms of their nationality. In Kazakhstan, when a person introduces themselves they do not refer to themselves as Kazakhstani, but rather as Kazakh or Russian, etc. On the other hand, in the United States, Great Britain, and other developed nations, when people describe themselves, their ethnicity or heritage is secondary. No matter where our families hail from, we are all American, or British . To those who cherish their ancestral culture and individual heritage, such a concept might seem frightening, but the fact is that the sense of a collective national identity is the foundation of success for all developed nations. It is what has made America the richest and most powerful nation on the planet, and it is what keeps America strong and united even in the face of civil conflict, terrorism, war, or economic collapse. This national unity is created through an integrated education system by allowing the children of different groups to share in a significant experience. The bonding power of significant experiences cannot be denied, as any army veteran can attest, and though school is not the same thing as war, it can be equally transformative. Learning, suffering, and succeeding together changes people and unites them under a common identity. Educating the children of Kazakhstan together, regardless of language or culture, will make it so that their first bond of loyalty is not to the land and culture of their ancestors, but rather to the land of their birth and/or citizenship.

Critics of this idea undoubtedly worry that assimilation and unification would lead to a loss of culture and language, and perhaps they are right to be concerned. After all, in the United States, the process of becoming American has left many of us without the ability to speak ancestral languages, and only a faint understanding of older traditions. However, if one is vigilante, there is no reason that people cannot both be Kazakhstani and still retain their own language and traditions. After all, thousands of families in the United States, Great Britain, and other developed countries do just that. Kazakhstan has already gone through a similar process of unification once before to great success. Although the Kazakh Khanate dates from 1300s, the Kazakh nation, in modern parlance, is still a relatively recent . It is once again time for the people of Kazakhstan to break down barriers and join together for the greater good, for while there is no threat from a foreign invader, there is the equally perilous economic crisis to contend with. Kazakhstan is on its way to achieving its 2030 goals, and a similar collective sense of national identity will help the country succeed even faster. Just imagine what could be accomplished if the everyone was working together as Kazakhstanis, rather than as Russians, Kazakhs, or Uzbeks who just happen to be citizens of Kazakhstan.


4. More Subjects, A Brighter Future

The final reason for adopting an integrated system of education is a practical one. It will mean more time for the subjects like economics, computer science, and English that are vital for success in a 21st century economy. These classes often get the short shrift in Kazakhstan’s segregated education system because of the inordinate amount of time spent on language instruction. Kazakhstan’s plan for three official languages, Kazakh, Russian, and English, is a great one, but separating the groups by language and then teaching them the other language is inefficient and ineffective. For instance, while students at Russian schools have Kazakh class several times a week, this language instruction does them little good because they do not have the opportunity to practice it. After school, they play with their Russian-speaking friends, eat dinner with their Russian-speaking families, and quickly forget much of what they just learned. In contrast, language instruction in an integrated education would much more effective and efficient because students would learn the languages in class and from each other. This would save a lot of time on language instruction, especially at the basic level, time which could then be used to instruct students on subjects that they truly need. Furthermore, these new subjects could be taught in different languages, for example Computer Science in Russian, political science in Kazakh, and Economics in English, thus giving students useful language practice at the same time.

5. Conclusion

Like America, Kazakhstan’s diverse, multicultural population is one of its greatest assets. Ethnic and cultural diversity has made Kazakhstan much stronger, richer, and more interesting than it would have been if only one group was living within its borders. , Kazakhstan has done a great job in reconciling these groups, some of which hold antithetical ideas. However, if Kazakhstan is truly going to join the ranks of the world’s developed nations, it must do more. An integrated education system is essential to Kazakhstan’s continued success. Such a system will equally and effectively prepare students for work in the 21st century, as well as make sure that everyone can communicate with each other in any of Kazakhstan’s three official languages. Most importantly, the system of integrated education system will unite the people of Kazakhstan like never before. They will no longer split themselves along ethnic and linguistic lines, but consider themselves part of a single nation, and work toward the future together.

6. References
• Wikipedia Encyclopedia.
-“Cognitive Development. ”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_development
-“Jim Crow Law.” http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim-Crow-laws
-“African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968).” Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement
-“Kazakhstan.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan
• Supreme Court of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+). May 1954.
• Petroski, Karen. Making sense of Nationality : the politics of irrationality in British and American prose, 1776-1850. http://app.cul.columbia.edu:8080/ac/handle/10022/AC:P:3508
• Koch, George. Fear of the Other. http://www.georgekoch.com/articles/Fear_of_the_Other.htm