139 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

Multilingual Education in South Siberia: National Schools in the Republics of Altai and Tyva

Joan F. Chevalier United States Naval Academy

Abstract Subtractive bilingualism is widespread throughout Siberia, with indigenous youth often more proficient in Russian than in their non-Russian local languages. Siberia’s national schools, which are secondary schools offering instruction in local languages of , provide critical institutional support for minority languages. The goal of this interdisciplinary regional study is to present an overview of national schools’ development in two neighboring southern Siberian republics, Altai and Tyva, up to the present, and to evaluate the role of national schools’ local language programs in promoting language vitality. The study examines a shift in priorities and challenges in local language education since 1991, the factors contributing to the shift, particularly federally-enacted educational reforms, and what has been done in these regions to meet these challenges.

I. Introduction This interdisciplinary study traces the development of language education in the republics of Altai and Tyva since the end of the Soviet period, when major efforts, many of them based in schools, were launched to revitalize local languages in the Russian Federation (RF). The paper examines the development of these school-based local heritage language programs within the broader context of language contact to ascertain how local heritage language education is faring in south Siberia since these revitalization efforts were launched.

The contiguous Siberian republics of Altai and Tyva provide rich material for a comparative analysis of local language education programs. The community languages in Tyva and Altai, Tuvan and Altaian, are typologically similar . Although societies in this region share common cultural roots, language contact in each area has evolved in distinct ways. Ethnic Tuvans have always comprised the majority of the population of Tyva, whereas Russians have made up over 50% of the population of Altai since the 1920s. The analysis below will show that while local language education in each republic has been influenced by that republic’s distinct set of demographic characteristics, both republics are similarly affected by recent federally enacted education reforms.

This study is based on qualitative data collected in field studies conducted in the republics of Tyva and Altai in 2009 and 2010, funded in part by a National Endowment of Humanities Grant. The research for this project was conducted in two stages. First, secondary and primary literature on the establishment and history of local language education in Altai and Tyva was reviewed in order to locate current local language education issues within a historical context. Second, face- to-face interviews were conducted with local language teachers and school administrators from

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

140 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

rural and urban school districts. The interviews were designed to elicit teachers’ views about the status of local language education in their schools and school districts. Parts III through V below summarize the history of local language education in Altai and Tyva up through the 1990s. Part VI presents an overview of federal and local policies affecting local language school-based programs.

II. Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Language Contact The notion of ethnolinguistic vitality was introduced by Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor in 1977 to account for the key factors that influence the outcomes of language contact (Harwood, Giles, & Bourhis, 1994; Giles et al., 1977). Giles et al. identified three main factors that influence the degree of linguistic assimilation in a region: 1) demographic factors, especially the size and distribution of local language communities, 2) the status of languages in relation to one another, and 3) institutional support for local languages. Language status, defined by Giles et al. as the relative prestige of a language, is affected by language attitudes. As Karan (2000) points out, language status is influenced by popular perceptions of the language’s utility. If knowledge of a particular language is generally viewed as critical for socio-economic advancement, it is more likely to enjoy high levels of intergenerational transmission. Institutional support for local languages is also a critical factor in language vitality. While the use of and support for local languages in mass media, government, and business all affect the outcome of language contact, local education arguably has a more direct effect on the future of local language vitality since it enables younger generations of local language speakers to develop biliteracy while maintaining local language skills. This paper focuses primarily on the development of local language programs in South Siberian schools, but it also seeks to place school-based revitalization efforts within the context of language contact region-wide. From the late 1980s to 1990s there was widespread support for local language education in Tyva and Altai in spite of substantial differences in demographic conditions and levels of linguistic assimilation in each republic. Since the 1990s support for local language education in Altai and Tyva has waned. The groundswell of public support for school-based language revitalization efforts has been replaced by a focus on programs. This shift has been precipitated to a large degree by federal education reforms, which are reshaping educational priorities throughout Russia.

III. Heritage Language Learners in South Siberia: An Introduction This study adopts the definition of heritage speakers presented by Polinsky and Kagan: heritage speakers are “raised in a home where one language is spoken who subsequently switch to another dominant language” (2007, p. 368). As we shall see below, the term heritage speaker in the south Siberian region is most applicable to the language contact situation in the Republic of Altai, where linguistic assimilation to Russian is observed in a significant portion of the local Altaian population. The school-based language revitalization programs adopted in Altai were developed in response to ongoing language shift from bilingualism in Altaian and Russian to Russian monolingualism among younger generations of Altaians. Only 77.5% of Altaians identified Altaian as their native language in the 2002 Census (Federal’naia sluzhba gosudarstvennoi statistiki, 2004).1 Levels of linguistic assimilation from Tuvan to Russian are much lower in Tyva since Russians migrated to Tyva in comparatively modest numbers, and Tuvans have always comprised the majority of the population (see Table 1 below). The

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

141 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

demographic situation in Tyva continues to support the vitality of the Tuvan spoken language; moreover, there has been a concerted effort since the end of the Soviet period to support literacy by reforming and strengthening Tuvan language education.

Local education programs in the Russian Federation, and earlier in the Soviet Union, have taught the local language in one of two ways: 1) as the language of instruction, in what were until recently referred to as “national schools,”2 or 2) as a subject of study. In both types of programs Russian language and literature are studied as subjects as established in the federal curriculum. In schools where local language courses are offered a few hours a week, Russian is used as the language of instruction across the curriculum. In each republic, the current priorities of local language education reform have been shaped by the legacy of the Soviet system of education. Tyva was one of the few regions that maintained national schools offering instruction in Tuvan across the curriculum throughout the Soviet period. Since the 1980s 80% of secondary schools in Tyva have used Tuvan as the primary language of instruction. In contrast, by the 1980s Altaian national schools had shifted entirely to a curriculum taught in Russian. It must be noted that heritage language instruction in Kazakh is available in a few schools in Altai. A number of schools in Kosh-Agach, the southern region of Altai bordering on Kazakhstan, enroll a significant number of ethnic Kazakhs, but there are no schools in Altai with a curriculum taught entirely in Kazakh. Mongolian is not offered in schools in the Erzin region of Tyva near the Mongolian border, even though trilingualism in Russian, Mongolian, and Tuva is prevalent in that region. Due to the limited scope of these language programs, they are not discussed below.

IV. Altai and Tyva: An Introduction Ethnic Altaians and Tuvans were traditionally indigenous Samoyedic and Kettic speaking pastoral nomads who took on the language of their Turkic occupiers beginning in the fifth century as the Altai-Sayan region became part of the Turkic Khanate (Naumov, 2006, p. 37-43). In the 12-13th century, Mongols conquered the Yenisei basin, the territory of today’s Republic of Tyva, introducing Lamaist (Tibetan) Buddhism to the region (Mongush, 2001, p. 24). By the end of the 18th century, the first Buddhist monasteries were built in Tyva, and Buddhist monks introduced the first system of formal education. They used Old for all religious affairs, including education. In the 1830s, the first Russian settlers, who were gold miners, began arriving in Tyva (Alatalu, 1992, p. 881). Russian settlement, particularly when compared with the neighboring region of Altai, remained relatively modest, and in 1910 only 2000 Russians were living in Tyva (Sullivan, 1995, p. 67). In 1914 this area, known as Tannu Uriankhai, officially became a protectorate of the Russian Empire. From 1921 until the early 1930s, the main written language used for state business was Mongolian.

In the 1930s the first written script for Tuvan was introduced based on the , and a mass literacy campaign was launched to spread the use of the new . This period saw the advent of short-term Tuvan adult literacy courses in rural areas, as well as the first secondary schools for children. Soon after the first schools opened in the 1930s, two-year boarding schools were established for ethnic Tuvan children from rural areas.3 In these early national schools, Tuvan was the language of instruction. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s the number of secondary schools increased from seven in 1931 to 84 by 1943; however, more than

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

142 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

40% of Tuvan children aged 8 to 12 did not attend school (Serdobov, 1957, p. 104). When the region officially became part of the Soviet Union in 1944 and was granted status as an autonomous region within the Russian Republic, courses in Russian language were added to the national schools’ curriculum. Throughout the 1950s attempts were made in Tyva to increase the number of ethnic Tuvans attending school and to increase the total number of teachers. More boarding schools were opened for ethnic Tuvan students who lived in isolated rural areas (Serdobov, 1957, p. 110). Tyvan national schools offering instruction in Tuvan from grades 1 through 8 were retained throughout the Soviet period. In the 20 years since the end of the Soviet Union, Tuvan national schools have constituted 80% of all secondary schools in Tyva.

In summary, throughout the 20th century, Tyva remained an isolated, relatively inaccessible outpost on the periphery of the Russian empire. Historical and demographic conditions in Tyva have supported Tuvan language maintenance. As the census data in Table 1 illustrate, Tuvans have always constituted the majority of the population. An outmigration of Russians during the past decade has altered the language contact environment and, as will be discussed below, has brought about a change in the priorities of language education in the Republic of Tyva.

Table 1 Relative Concentration of Russians and Tuvans in the Republic of Tyva Year of Census % of Total Population: Ethnic % of Total Population: Tuvans Russian4 1970 58.0 38.0 1979 60.5 36.2 1989 64.3 32.0 2002 77.0 20.0 Note: Based on data from Vsesoiuznaia perepis’ naseleniia [All-union census] 1970, 1979, 1989 and Vserossiiskaia perepis’ naseleniia [All-Russian Census], 2002.

Table 2 Relative Concentration of Russians and Altaians in the Republic of Altai Year of Census % of Total Population: ethnic % of Total Altaians Population: Russian

1926 35.7 52.0 1970 27.8 65.6 1979 29.2 63.2 2002 30.6 57.4 Note: Based on data from Vsesoiuznaia perepis’ naseleniia [All-union census] 1926, 1970, 1979, and Vserossiiskaia perepis’ naseleniia [All-Russian census], 2002.

While Altai shared with neighboring Tyva the same history of successive occupations through the 18th century, Russian migration to Altai began significantly earlier and brought far larger

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

143 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

numbers of immigrants to Altai than to Tyva. Russian migration to the region began in the 17th century as the Russian Empire established a series of forts and settlements in the region. Geography affected the demographic history of Altai. The northern region of Altai, present-day , is comparatively flat, while the mountainous topography in the south rendered that region comparatively less accessible for settlement. The Russian migration to Altai was focused in the relatively more accessible north. The trickle of migration into northern Altai in the early 19th century became a flood once the Trans-Siberian Railway was built in the 1890s. According to Forsyth (1992, p. 186), by the beginning of the First World War, Altai had the most dense population of Russians of any Siberian region. As increasing numbers of Russians arrived in the north, significant numbers of ethnic Altaians moved to the mountainous areas in the south. The outmigration of Altaians from the north, coupled with the large numbers of Russian arrivals, produced demographic conditions in the north that fostered linguistic assimilation.

Assimilation in the north of Altai was exacerbated by the minority status of northern Altaian dialects. The Altaian language is comprised of two distinct branches: northern and southern. The northern Altaian languages include the Tuban, Chalkan, and Kumandin dialects, which are part of the eastern branch of the Khakasiian Turkic language family, while the southern dialects, Altai kizhi, Telengit, and Teleut, belong to the Kirgiz-Kypchak group of Turkic languages (Baskakov, 1988, p. 3).5 These two main dialect groups are distinguished by substantial phonological, morphological, and lexical differences (Baskakov, 1988; Tybykova & Chumakaev, 1981; Tybykova, 1994). With the large influx of Russians into the northern regions of Altai, the Tuban, Chalkan and Kumandin speakers gradually assimilated and became Russian language dominant. In the 2002 Census, fewer than 6,000 total respondents identified themselves as speakers of one of these three northern dialects. In 1994 these dialects were officially listed in the Red Book of Endangered Languages.6

The Altaian written language was first developed by Russian orthodox missionaries in the 1840s. Based on the Teleut dialect, the written language was based on the Cyrillic alphabet. The first school in Altai was opened by a mission in 1830 (Belikova, 2007, pp. 10-11). By 1884 there were a total of 23 schools in Altai, all run by missionaries (Belikova, 2007, p. 11). In setting up these schools, Makarii Glukharev, the head of the Altai mission, was guided by a system for education of Turkic-speaking peoples designed by N. I. Il’minskii, a specialist in Turkic and Oriental languages. The guiding principle of Il’minskii’s approach was that indigenous peoples should be educated in their native language (Kreindler, 1979). Glukharev’s practice of using Altaian as the language of instruction for ethnic Altaian students was continued through the Russian Revolution. In 1922, the Altai krai was officially designated as the Oirat Autonomous Oblast’ and initiatives were launched to revise the Altaian written language and base it on the Altai-Kizhi dialect, which was spoken by the majority of Altaians. These language reforms were followed by a short-lived attempt in 1931 to adopt a script for Altai that was based on the Latin alphabet. In 1938, a Cyrillic-based script for Altaian was reintroduced (Shtanakova, 2005).

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, efforts were made to expand secondary education in Altai (Kudirmekova, 2008, pp. 34-53). The study of the Russian language was made mandatory throughout the USSR beginning in March of 1938, and instruction in Russian was introduced

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

144 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

beginning in second grade Altaian national schools (Kudirmekova, 2008, p. 74). By 1940 over 60% of the secondary schools in Altai were national schools (Belikova 2003, p. 114). In the post- war years, an initiative was launched to expand compulsory education from seven to eight years throughout the USSR, resulting in a boom of school construction. From 1959 to 1969, forty nine schools were constructed in Altai (Belikova, p. 114). Throughout the 1960s and the early 70s, national schools gradually shifted to using Russian as the language of instruction and by the mid- 1970s the shift was complete. During the 1970s Altaian language completely disappeared from the school curriculum.

A number of factors contributed to linguistic assimilation among ethnic Altaians in the twentieth century. First, the mass migration of Russians in the second half of the nineteenth century irrevocably changed the demography of the region. Although the Russian population has declined from its peak in the 1930s, Altaians have continued to represent less than 50% of the population since Russian revolution.7 Second, during the Soviet period the long tradition of using Altaian as the language of instruction introduced in the mission schools was abandoned over time, and in many schools instruction in Altaian disappeared.

V. Altaian and Tuvan National Schools in the 1990s Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and a campaign for more local control by many ethnolingual groups, language issues were publicly debated in both Altai and Tyva. Public discussion in the both republics’ local press focused on the need to revitalize local languages. Laws granting these languages and Russian legal status as state languages were passed in both Altai and Tyva, giving a legal basis for efforts to rejuvenate and expand local language education and national schools.8

In the early 1990s, the federal system of education was decentralized and the school curriculum divided into three parts: federal, regional, and school-based. In 1992, the federal law “On education” gave local educators and administrators control over the regional component of the curriculum, mandated to comprise no less than 10% of overall curricula. During the early 1990s, energies of Ministry of Education staff and local language educators in both republics focused on developing the regional component to support a renaissance of local languages and cultures.9

In the post-Soviet period, efforts to strengthen local language education in Tyva have focused on integrating Tuvan culture into the curriculum. In the 1990s a series of early initiatives in ethnopedagogy were developed for Tyva’s regional curriculum, including experimental programs for national schools that introduced traditional local culture, art, music, oral traditions, and moral education based on Tuvan traditional culture.10 11 In addition, an ethnopedogogy pilot program was developed over a ten-year period, which resulted in the creation of Tuvan-language ethnopedagogy textbooks for grades one through seven and a book on ethnopedagogy in Tuvan for teacher education (Sundui et al., 2006). As a result of this ethnopedagogy initiative, one instructional hour a week is devoted to the study of traditional culture in schools, during which Tuvan is used as the language of instruction and all supporting curricular materials are in Tuvan.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

145 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

Public opinion polls conducted among ethnic Tuvans in the early 1990s indicated strong popular support for expanding local language education (Seliverstova, 2005, 2008), and instruction in Tuvan was extended to include all eleven grades. In the early 1990s, Tuvan education policies were introduced that aimed to increase access to Tuvan language instruction in urban areas, especially in the capital Kyzyl, where Russians made up the majority of the population (60%). Traditionally, most Tuvan national schools were concentrated in rural areas. By the end of the Soviet era, only one school in the capital city Kyzyl offered a curriculum taught in Tuvan. Efforts to increase access to Tuvan instruction included the creation of “mixed” schools in urban areas offering a curriculum taught in Russian or Tuvan. This initiative effectively allowed urban parents the freedom to choose the language of instruction for their children.

Despite their popularity, measures aimed at strengthening local language education in Tuva proved difficult to finance. The 1995 federal law “On local government” shifted the financial burden for secondary education from the national budget to the regions (Canning et al., 1999). While decentralization of the education system gave local educators more control over what they taught, it also meant that spending on education depended on the availability of local economic resources. The Republic of Tuva has remained at the bottom of all of the major economic indices for the Siberian region since the end of the Soviet period and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Russian Federation (RF) (Anaiban 2005, pp. 54-56). As a result of the ongoing economic crisis, plans for the production of pedagogical material for local language education were not met, and plans to expand Tuvan language courses for Russian speakers in the schools were abandoned.12 Overall, local language education made modest gains in Tuva in the 1990s, and Tuva retained a national school program through the end of the Soviet period. The ethnopedagogy program developed during the past two decades, despite local economic challenges, remains Tyva’s most notable achievement in local language education.

In Altai, efforts to revive school-based local language programs in the 1990s were deemed a priority since by 1989 the indicated that at least 10% of Altaians had shifted to Russian as their primary language.13 This shift from Altaian to Russian occurred in part because bilingual education was abandoned in Altai, and Altaian gradually disappeared from the school curriculum in the 1970s.14 In 1993, as part of a broad language revitalization effort, national school curricula offering instruction in Altaian were reestablished in approximately one third of Altaian schools (in sixty-two out of 193), all of them rural (Kypchakov, 1993, p. 24). Remedial courses in Altaian as a heritage language were also introduced for ethnic Altaian school students not proficient in Altaian. By 1998, one quarter of all schools in the republic offered courses for heritage speakers of Altaian (Pustogacheva, 1999, p. 97). On July 16, 1992 the law “Conception of National Schools of the Republic of Altai” was passed by the Altaian parliament (Petrov et al., 1993). This document set forth long term goals for the national schools and for the development of the regional part of the school curricula. The law stipulated that elementary and secondary school curricula be taught entirely in Altaian from grades one through nine, essentially making the study of Altaian obligatory in all Altaian national schools (Kandrakova, 2000a, 2000b). In addition, the law mandated that all Altaians not proficient in Altaian take courses in Altaian.15

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

146 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

These attempts to stave off language shift by mandating Altai language study, expanding instruction in the national schools, and forcing heritage learners to enroll in Altai language classes failed for several reasons. First, Altai language courses for heritage learners typically were tacked on to a curriculum in Russian schools that was already full of courses required in the federal component of the curricula. Second, although the "Conception of National Schools" law called for the development of pedagogical materials for heritage Altaian language courses, almost a decade later teachers and administrators interviewed in 2010 acknowledged a chronic lack of textbooks in all the schools teaching Altaian. Ministry officials as well as Altaian language teachers agreed that many of the Altaian textbooks available were produced over twenty years ago and are in need of revision. Despite the widespread need for pedagogical materials, no funding has been made available for textbooks in Altaian during the 2010-2011 school year.

Despite support in the 1990s for reintroducing instruction in Altaian language in the schools, a decade later it became evident that popular opinion had shifted. Parents and students in urban areas surveyed in 2000 did not support the creation of heritage language classes, nor did they support an expansion of Altai language instruction in the national schools. According to a local poll conducted in 2000, 80% of urban parents were against expanding Altai language instruction (Kandrakova, 2006; Belikova, 2002, p. 8; Chumakaev, 2003). By 2000, many of the goals articulated in the Conception law remained unrealized in Altai and in hindsight appeared idealistic. While students in areas with a sizable Altaian population were offered choices for language study, those choices fell far short of the goal of using Altaian as the language of instruction for all subjects from preschool to ninth grade. In the 1990s, the Altaian language typically was the language of instruction in national schools only through fourth grade, and in many cases not for every subject.16

Part VI. Altaian and Tuvan National Schools Since 2000 In the last decade, local education priorities have changed in part due to demographic and economic pressures. One of the most intractable problems of the 1990s in Tyva, the falling level of Russian language proficiency among rural school children, has continued and worsened in the last decade (Silivanova, 2002; Donkak, 2001; Seliverstova, 2008; Khovenmei, 1997). The demography of western and southern Tyva was altered by the outmigration of twenty thousand Russians in the period between the 1989 and 2002 census. Although migration levels have stabilized, the outmigration has left many rural areas almost completely devoid of native Russian language speakers. Children from these areas tend to lack even basic proficiency in Russian language. Partly in reaction to this situation, increasing numbers of rural Tuvan families are uprooting themselves from rural areas (served only by national schools) and are moving to the capital city, Kyzyl. From 2006-2007, the urban school population grew by 7.4% (Morozov, 2007). Seliverstova’s 2007 limited opinion poll of Tuvan parents conducted in urban schools indicates that parents move their families from rural areas to escape poverty and unemployment. Similarly, the author’s 2007 interviews with educators in Kyzyl and surrounding areas corroborated that these new arrivals overwhelmingly choose to educate their children in Russian. Thus the popular support for Tuvan language in the schools in the 1990s has been gradually replaced by a push to improve Russian language proficiency. In response to these pressures,

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

147 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

Tuvan national schools have dropped Tuvan language instruction in tenth and eleventh grade, replacing it with a curriculum taught entirely in Russian. In Altai, there has been a further scaling back of the Altaian language in the school curriculum. The process of language contact in the Republic of Altai is producing different results than in Tyva, and these outcomes have shaped the local debate about language education. The majority of ethnic Russians in Altai (according to the 2002 Census, Altaians make up 30.6% and Russians 57.4% of the population) and the comparatively higher rates of linguistic assimilation to Russian, especially in the northern districts of Altai, kept educators focused throughout the 1990s on reintroducing local language instruction and reviving national schools. But the failed attempts to make Altai language study mandatory in the 1990s led to a reexamination of the early goals set for local language education. The policies created in the 1990s for Altaian national schools specified that Altaian be used as the language of instruction in grades one through nine. By 2003 the curricula stipulated that Altaian be used as the language of instruction only for the regional part of the curriculum, that is, for the hours allotted for Altai language and literature. The basic curriculum plan for national schools up to 2007 allotted five hours of study per week for the regional component in grades one through five (three hours for language study and two hours for literature and history), and four hours for grades six through nine (two hours each for language and literature).

The data for this study were gathered through interviews and surveys with language teachers, which included questions soliciting their views about the current status of local language education in their schools and school districts. In Altai interviews were conducted during school visits in six regions with varying demographic characteristics. Interviews in Tyva were conducted during visits to rural and urban schools and were supplemented with surveys completed by thirty teachers.

The data confirm that a fundamental change in attitudes towards language education has taken place in both republics. Ninety-seven per cent of the teachers queried asserted that students and parents are increasingly less inclined to pursue instruction in the local language. When asked to identify the factors motivating this shift in popular opinion, teachers overwhelmingly singled out the Unified State Exam as the cause. The Unified State Exam (Edinnyi Gosudarstvennyi Ekzamen), or USE, is a standardized college entrance exam that has been introduced throughout the RF during the past decade. The USE is one of a number of federal measures that are contributing to a change in public attitudes about the viability and utility of local language education. These federal measures are changing the fundamental shape and trajectory of local language education in the RF.

The USE, which is entirely in Russian, has been a powerful force, altering the priorities in local language education. Passing scores on the USE Russian language exam and mathematics are required for graduation from high school in Russia. Students who fail the exam are issued certificates instead of diplomas at the end of their eleventh grade year and are effectively barred from applying to college, although they are allowed to retake the USE. The local language educators surveyed for this study identified the USE as the most influential factor motivating the shift from school curriculum taught in local languages to a Russian language curriculum, because the USE poses challenges for indigenous Siberians who are speakers of a language other than

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

148 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

Russian. Indigenous Siberians in rural areas often lack requisite Russian language skills to pass the exam. Rural school districts in Tyva typically do not have native-speaking Russian language instructors and, in many cases, do not have the resources to offer a curriculum taught in Russian. Many local language educators in rural districts both in Tyva and Altai who were interviewed for this study indicated that significant numbers of their best indigenous students were leaving rural schools and transferring to urban school districts that offer a curriculum taught in Russian. In the remote Altaian districts of Ulagan and Kosh-Agach local teachers said that heritage Altaian learners in ninth and tenth grade routinely ask to be excused from heritage language classes in order to prepare for the USE. This high-stakes testing has likewise increased the pressure on school administrators, educators, students, and families to call for an increase in resources for the study of Russian. A common complaint among teachers surveyed in both republics was that school administrators frequently devote all available resources to subjects that are tested as part of the USE, leaving local language programs underfunded and understaffed. A number of Tuvan language teachers surveyed suggested that a USE exam be established in Tuvan, in the hope that such a test would raise students’ motivation to study local languages.

Federal education reforms have also had a far-reaching effect on education in the republics. In December of 2007 amendments were proposed to the federal law “On education” that liquidated the regional component of the school curriculum. This legislation was followed in 2008 by another federal law (“On the introduction of changes to specific laws of the RF, specifically a change in the conception of the structure of the state educational standards.”), which laid the legal framework for a recentralization of control over the secondary school curriculum. The full ramifications of these changes are not known at this time. When first announced, these reforms sparked apprehension among regional educators because they feared it was a tool for ending bilingual education programs altogether. Local language educators in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan were most outspoken in their opposition to the changes. Public demonstrations were organized in Ufa, Bashkortostan, protesting the reduction in hours allotted to the study of Bashkir (IA Regnum, 2008). The basic federal curriculum for 2009 issued by the Federal Ministry of Education allotted nine hours per week for the study of Russian and only two hours per week for the study of local languages. The Altai school curriculum continues to allot three hours a week for the study of Altaian, so that Altaian is the language of instruction only for courses in Altai language and literature. As for Tyva, ethnopedagogy experts at the Institute of National Schools in Kyzyl in 2010 interviews expressed guarded optimism about the future of ethnopedagogy and the of Tuvan language education programs in the schools. Eighty percent of Tuvan schools are rural and feature a curriculum taught primarily in Tuvan. However, despite an endorsement by local language educators for the development of more Tuvan language textbooks, ministry officials in interviews in 2008 and 2009 acknowledged that improving Russian language proficiency among ethnic Tuvan students remains the chief priority.

While the federal reforms discussed above are having a substantial impact on regional education systems, the federal education project “Prioritetnyi natsional’nyi proekt 'Obrazovanie,'” [The Priority National Project “Education”] announced in 2007 could arguably have the most far- reaching effect on local language programs if it is implemented. This program, which aims to modernize regional education, mandates that all schools be financed based on the size of the

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

149 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

student population. This reform’s goal is to consolidate school populations, cut costs, and provide more support for larger schools. In regions such as Tyva and Altai, where over 50% of public schools are in rural areas, the program could have a substantial impact on the availability of local language education. Up to now, regional education administrators in both republics have been able to implement policies to soften the potential impact of this program. In both republics, school administration has been reorganized, and smaller rural schools have been placed administratively under the control of larger regional schools. To date, the formation of these links between regional and rural schools has prevented the closing of many small schools.

Part VIII. Conclusions In south Siberia, three distinct language contact environments emerged with Russian colonization. In Altai, particularly in the north, Russians settled in large numbers during the last years of the monarchy and have comprised the majority of the population since the 1920s. These demographic conditions have fostered linguistic assimilation to Russian, which is progressing despite all efforts to resist it. The northern dialects Tuba, Kumandin, Chalkan are all endangered, and speakers of these dialects number a few thousand. In the south of Altai, where the majority of Altaians settled, local literacy skills were on the wane during the Soviet period as local language education was phased out. By contrast, Tyva, in part due to its relative inaccessibility, preserved demographic conditions that supported additive bilingualism. Tuvans have always comprised the majority of Tyva’s population and until recently have remained strong supporters of local language education. The survival of the national school system featuring Tuvan as the language of instruction throughout the Soviet period helped ensure that ethnic Tuvans would develop additive rather than subtractive bilingualism.

The end of the Soviet Union was accompanied by a period of support for local languages and cultures across the Russian Federation. Although Altai and Tyva had very different demographic characteristics, local language revitalization was widely supported in both republics. A priority of the newly formed local republic governments in Tyva and Altai was to develop legislation supporting the revitalization of local languages and cultures. In the early 1990s a significant number of resources in both republics were committed to revive and strengthen local language programs in elementary and secondary schools. Initiatives aimed at strengthening local language education received broad public support, especially in rural areas where most local language communities were concentrated. The differing strategies adopted for revitalizing local language education in each region reflected the distinct demographic and historical conditions shaping the sociolinguistic situation in each republic. In Tyva, where demographic conditions supported additive bilingualism, scant local resources were focused on expanding the number of urban schools offering a Tuvan language option and on developing ethnopedagogical curricular materials. In Altai concern about the growing linguistic assimilation led to a series of local language reforms mandating obligatory study of Altaian language by all ethnic Altaians.

Today, twenty years after efforts to revitalize local languages in the region were launched, a fundamental shift has taken place in attitudes towards local language education. In both republics, federal education reforms are reshaping priorities in language education at the local level. In Tyva, which has experienced a significant outmigration of Russians, there is a growing

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

150 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

concern about dropping Russian language proficiency levels among school-aged children. In Altai, expectations for local language education have been scaled back. While courses for heritage speakers of Altaian are offered in many schools in areas where linguistic assimilation to Russian has been widespread, curricular plans to implement the use of Altaian as the language of instruction from grades 1 through 11 have been abandoned. Heritage language instruction in Altaian is currently limited to three contact hours per week. In Tyva and Altai, grassroots support for local language education has waned following the implementation of federal educational standards and high stakes testing.

Since the USE exam has become a requirement for high school graduation, the ministries of education in both republics have responded by strengthening Russian language study in the schools. In addition, the national shift to school funding based on student population is challenging small rural schools to do more with less. More importantly, the federal educational reforms described above are changing public perceptions about local language education. Since the introduction of the USE, community enthusiasm for local language school programs has been replaced by calls to devote more school resources to Russian language instruction. Given the current lack of support for local language education, it is unlikely that heritage language programs in south Siberia will be expanded in the foreseeable future. It is far more likely that local language education programs will continue to be challenged to do more with dwindling resources as local rural school districts struggle to prepare students for the Russian language USE.

Acknowledgement This study was funded in part by a grant from the National Endowment of Humanities.

References Alatalu, T. (1992). Tuva. A State Reawakens. Soviet Studies, 44(5), 881-895. Alpatov, V. M. (1997). 150 iazykov i politika [150 languages and politics]. , Russia: Institut vostokovedeniia RAN. Anaiban, Z. B. (2005). Zhenshchiny Tuvy i Khakasii v period rossiiskikh reform.[The women of Tuva and Khakasiia in the period of Russian reforms]. Moscow, Russia: Institut vostokovedeniia, RAN. Bashky. (2006). Zakon Respubliki Tyva – Ob obrazovanii [Law of the Republic of Tyva: On education]. 2(20), 7-17. Baskakov, N. A. (1988). Dialekty altaiskogo iazyka. In M. I. Chermisina (Ed.), Voprosy altaiskogo iazykoznaniia, sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Questions of Altaic Language Knowledge: A collection of scholarly works] (pp. 3-20). Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: Institut 14 istorii, filologii i filosofii Sibirskogo otdeleniia Akademii nauk SSSR. Belikova, A. P. (2002). Osnovnye tendentsii razvitiia narodnogo obrazovaniia v Respublike Altai (90 gg XX - nachalo XXI v.) [Foundational tendencies of the development of indigenous education in the Republic of Altai (from the 1990s – the beginning of the 21st century]. In A. P. Belikova & R. V. Oprain Eds., Narodnoe obrazovanie - faktor sotsial'no- ekonomicheskogo kul'turnogo razvitiia Respubliki Altai, [Public education: The factor of

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

151 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

social-economic cultural development of the Republic of Altai] (pp. 5-9). Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: Gorno-Altaiskii gosudarstvennyi universitet. Belikova, A.P. (2003). K istorii razvitiia obshchego obrazovaniia v Gornom Altae v Sovetskii period (1920-1990) [Towards a history of development of general education in Gornyi Altai in the Soviet period (1920-1990). In M. I. Palkin (Ed.), Gornyi Altai: istoriia, sovremennost', perspektivy. [Gornyi Altai: History, Modernity, Perspectives] (pp, 111-116). Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: Gorno-Altaiskii gosudarstvennyi universitet. Belikova, A.P. (2007). Ocherki istorii obshchego i pedagogichekogo obrazovaniia v Respublike Altai (XIX-nachalo XXI vv) [Studies of the history of general and pedagogical education in the Republic of Altai]. Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: RIO Gorno-Altaiskogo universiteta. Blum, A., & Fillipova, E. (2003). , nationality or clan: Rival forms of identity? Revue d’Études Démographique, 34 (4), 131-152. Canning, M., Moock, P. & Heleniak, T. (1999). Reforming education in the regions of Russia. (World Bank Technical Paper No. 457). Herndon, VA: World Bank Publications. Donkak, . (2001). Interv’iu s P. A. Morozovym [Interview with P.A. Morozov]. Bashky 1,11- 13. Chumakaev, A. Z. (2003). O iazykovoi politike v Respublike Altai [On language policy in the Republic of Altai]. In Iu. V. Tabakaev & V. S. Polianskii (Eds.), Sotsial'nye protsessy v sovremennoi Zapadnoi Sibiri. Sbornik nauchnikh statei [Social processes in contemporary Western Siberia: A collection of scholarly articles]. (pp. 173-175). Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: Gorno-Altaiskii universitet. Federal’naia sluzhba gosudarstvennoi statistiki. (2004). Vserossiiskaia perepis’ naseleniia 2002 goda [the All-Russian Census of 2002]. Moscow, Russia: IITS Statistika Rossii. Natsional’nii sostav i vladenie iazykami. Retrieved from http://www.perepis2002.ru/ index.html?id=17. Forsyth, J. (1992). A history of the peoples of Siberia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Giles H., Bourhis, R. R. & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group situations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, (pp. 307-348). London, UK: Academic Press. Gosudarstvennyi komitet SSSR po statistike. Informatsionno-izdatel’skii tsentr. 1989- 1990. Itogi Vsesoiuznoi perepisii naselenii 1979 [Results of the All-Union Census of 1979]. Gosudarstvennyi komitet SSSR po statistike. (1989). V. T. Alferov (Ed.), Vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1989 goda [All-Union Census of 1989]. Moscow, Russia: Finansy i statistika. Harwood, J, Giles, H. & Bourhis, R. Y. (1994). The genesis of vitality theory: Historical patterns and discoursal dimensions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108, 167-206. IA Regnum. (2008). V Ufe proidet piket za vozvrashchenie regional’nogo komponenta shkolnoi programmy [Picketing in Ufa supports a return of regional component of school curriculum]. Retrieved from http://www.regnum.ru/news/1099561.html. Kandrakova, E. P. (2000a, January 12). Iazyk – osnova kultury [Language – The foundation of culture]. Ulalu, 1(13), 1-3. Kandrakova, E. P. (2000b, January 19). Iazyk – osnova kultury [Language – The foundation of culture]. Ulalu, 2(14), 1, 3.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

152 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

Kandrakova, E. P. (2006, June 7). Iazykovye problemy shkol’nogo obrazovaniia [Language problems in secondary school education]. Vestnik, 23(188), 5. Karan, M. E. (2000). Motivations: language vitality assessments using the perceived benefit model of language shift. In G. Kindall and M. P. Lewis (Eds.), Assessing ethnolinguistic vitality theory and practice (pp. 39-64). Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Khovenmei, V. (1997, May 17). V krizise li obrazovanie respubliki [Is the republic’s education in crisis]? Tuvinskaia Pravda, 56, 3. Konchar, N. C. (2001). Razvitie obrazovaniia v Tyve [The development of education in Tyva]. Bashky, 2, 1-18. Kreindler, I. (1979). Nikolai Il’minskii and Language Planning in Nineteenth Century. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 22, 5-26. Kudirmekova, N. I. (2008). Stanovlenie i razvitie altaiskogo natsional’noi shkoly (1917- 1958 gg) [The establishment and development of the Altai national school]. Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: RIO Gorno-Altaiskogo universiteta. Kypchakov, V. K. (Ed.). (1993). Kontseptsiia natsional’nykh shkol Respubliki Altai [The conception of national schools of the ]. Komitet obrazovaniia pravitel’stva Respublika Altai. Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: GAT. Makosheva, A. A. Ed., Makoshev A. P., & I. P. Alionysheva (2007). Naselenie Respublika Altai: systemno-strukturnyi analiz [The population of the Republic of Altai: a systematic structural analysis]. Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: Iuch-Sumer-Beluka. Mongush, V. M. (2001). Istorii buddizma v Tuve [The history of Buddhism in Tyva]. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Morozov, P. A. (2007). Natsional’nyi proekt “obrazovanie" [The national project “Education”].” Bashky 2, 12-18. Naumov, I. V. (2006). The history of Siberia, David N. Collins (Ed.), London, UK: Routledge. Nikolina, E. V. (2003). Sfery ispol’zovaniia iazyka Tuba po dannym ekspeditsii 2000-2001 [Spheres of use of the Tuba language according to data from the expedition 2000-2001]. In A. E. Chumakaev [ed.], Issledovaniia po altaiskomu iazyku (pp. 145-148). Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: Gorno-Altaiskii universitet. Petrov et al. (1993). Kontseptsiia natsional’nykh shkol Respubliki Altai [The conception of national schools of the Altai Republic]. Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: n.p. Polinsky, M. & Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368-395. Pustogacheva, O. N. (1999). Sovremennoe sostoianie i perspektivy obucheniia rodnomu iazyku detei nevladeiushchikh im [The current state and prospects for native language education for children]. In National’nyi regional’nyi komponent obrazovaniia: problemy, resheniia, perspektivy Doklady i materialy nauchno-prakticheskoi koferentsii g. Gorno-Altaisk, 25 aprelia 1998 [The national regional component of education: problems, solutions, perspectives. Reports and materials from the academic conference in Gorno-Altaisk, April 25, 1998], (pp. 96-99). Gorno- Altaisk, Russia: Izdatel’skii otdel Min. Obrazvaniia i nauki. Seliverstova, G. (2005). Problema dvuiazychiia v Tuve [The issue of bilingualism in Tyva]. Bashky 4, 11-14. Seliverstova, G. (2008, March 27). Problemy dvuiazychiia v Tuve [The issue of bilingualism in Tyva]. Tuvinskaia Pravda, 35, 8-9.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

153 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

Serdobov, N. A. (1957). Narodnoe obrazovanie v Tuve [Indigenous education in Tyva]. Uchenye zapiski vypusk 15: (pp. 104-112). Kyzyl, Russia: Tuvinskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo. Shtanakova, N. R. (2005). O diskussiiakh po problemam razvitiia Altaiskogo iazyka (20-30 gg) [On discussions about the development of the Altaic language]. In N. M. Ekeeva (Ed.), Ural- Altai: Cherez veka v budushchee. Materialy nauchnogo konferentsii 11-13 sentiabria 2003 [Ural-Altai: Through the centuries into the future: Conference proceedings] (pp. 67-69). Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: Institut altaistiki. Silivanova, S. (2002). Pust’ novyi god budet dlia vsekh nas schastlivym [May the new year be happy for you]. Bashky 2, 8-16. Staticheskii komitet sodruzhestva nezavisimyx gosudarstv (1993). Itogi vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1989 goda [Results of the All-Union Census of 1989], vol 7. Moscow: Gosstatizdat. Sullivan, S. (1995). Interethnic Relations in Post-Soviet Tuva. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 18 (1), 64-88. Sundui, G. (1997). Etnopedagogicheskoe soderzhanie shkol’nogo obrazovanie Respublika Tyva [The ethnopedagogical nature of K-12 education in the Republic of Tyva]. Bashky, 2(20), 46- 48. Sundui G. D, Shaaly A. S., Ondar G. K., & Mongush V. B. (2006, September 28). Doklad itogovoi respublikanskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii prosviashchennoi zaversheniiu eksperimental’nogo proekta [Report on findings of the republic academic conference on the conclusion of an experimental project]. Kyzyl, Russia: n.p. Tsentral’noe statisticheskoe upravlenie. (1962). Itogi vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1959 goda [Results of the All-Union Census of 1959]. Moscow: Gosstatizdat. Tsentral’noe statisticheskoe upravlenie. (1972-1974). Itogi vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1970 goda [Results of the All-Union Census of 1970]. Moscow, Russia: Statisika. Tybykova, A. T. (1994). Problemy altaiskogo iazyka [The issue of the Altaic language]. In Materialy po istorii i kul’ture Respubliki Altai: tezisy i konferentsii, posviashchennoi 125 letiiu G. I. Choros-Gurkina. Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: Gorno-altaiskii issledovatel’skii institut. Tybykoba, A. T., & Chumakaeva, M. Ch. (1981). O dialektakh altakskogo iazyka [On Altaic dialects]. In A. T. Tybykova (Ed.), Voprosy izucheniia altaiskogo iazyka [Questions on the study of the Altaic language] (pp. 60-86). Gorno-Altaisk, Russia: Gorno-Altaiskii nauchno- issledovatel’skii institut istorii, iazyka i literatura. Tyva, Russia: Komitet gosudarstvennoi statistiki respublika.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

154 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

Notes 1. From 1970 to 2002 98 to 99% of ethnic Tuvan respondents to the Census identified Tuvan as their native language.

2. The term “national schools” disappeared in the 1990s. Decisions are made about what kind of curriculum to offer in each school at the local level based on the composition of the surrounding community. Rural schools serving a large indigenous population are more likely to offer a curriculum taught in the local language.

3. The boarding schools were opened for children from pastoral nomadic families who typically lived in remote rural areas.

4. Less than 1% of the population of Tyva is made up of ethnic Khakas, the third largest ethnolinguistic group in Tyva.

5. There has been an ongoing debate about whether Tuba, Kumandin and Chalkan are dialects or separate languages. Linguists agree that there are substantial lexical, phonological, and morphological differences between the northern dialect group and the southern dialect group.

6. The decision to label Tuba, Kumandin, and Chalkan as separate languages rather than dialects and apply for endangered status was controversial among the Altaian intelligentsia. For a discussion of the debate surrounding this issue see Blum and Fillipova (2003).

7. For a detailed analysis of the demography of Altai from 1897 to 2002 see Makosheva et al. (2007).

8. The Tuvan language law was rewritten in 1994, changing the status of the Russian language from an “official” language to one of the “state” languages, thereby effectively establishing equal legal status for Tuvan and Russian.

9. In 2001, the Tuvan parliament passed the law “On education,” which was revised in 2003 and 2006. This bill reiterated much of the policy stated in the federal law of the same name, codifying the local organizations responsible for education in Tyva and their responsibilities. This bill (Art. 6) included provisions guaranteeing the right to education in one of the state languages of the republic (Bashky, 2006).

10. G. Sundui, Assistant Director, Institute of National Schools, Kyzyl, Republic of Tyva, interviewed by the author on June 20, 2010.

11. Most of the Tuvan ethnopedagogy experts were alumni of the Institute of National Schools in Moscow, where under the guidance of G. N. Volkov, they drafted curriculum for moral education based on Tuvan traditional culture.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access

155 Heritage Language Journal, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.9.2.1 Summer, 2012

12. R. Begzi, retired teacher (lead instructor of Tuvan language for Russian students), interviewed by the author on June 27, 2010, Kyzyl, Republic of Tyva.

13. See Staticheskii komitet sodruzhestva nezavisimyx gosudarv (1993, p. 222).

14. In the 1960s there were national school programs in forty-seven languages throughout the Soviet Union. By 1982 these programs were available in only seventeen languages (Alpatov, 1997, p. 114).

15. There have been two other attempts to make the study of Altai language mandatory, one in 1991 and another in 1999.

16. M. M. Burulova, Ministry of Education, Republic of Altai interviewed by the author May 31, 2010.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 09:30:51PM via free access