Send message to Author

Abstract

This paper addresses several educational challenges that Kazakhstan is currently facing, which hinder its progress toward establishing a thriving education system. They include unequal access to quality education across different regions of Kazakhstan, outdated curricula and teaching methods, technological challenges, a shortage of qualified teachers, a lack of inclusion of marginalized and disadvantaged groups, and inadequate funding and research (Kamanga, n.d.). I explain why each of these challenges presents a pressing problem for Kazakhstan’s education system and requires action by the Kazakhstani government. In addition, I present the results of qualitative research conducted with 5 teachers in Kazakhstan, which sought to determine answers to the following questions:

1. Which of the aforementioned problems should the Kazakhstani government address as a top priority and why?

2. What consequences might arise if these problems are not addressed soon?

3. What other issues besides those previously mentioned should the government of Kazakhstan make in its education system in the next 5 years?

The government of Kazakhstan is on course to improve its education system, as evidenced by its plan to spend over one trillion tenge (approximately $1.9 billion) in 2025 on education (Prime Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2024). I argue that Kazakhstan should prioritize using this money to increase teacher salaries, address the disparities between urban and rural schools, and update school and university curricula and technology, as these issues directly impact educational quality, equity, and national development.

My paper sheds light on problems that currently affect Kazakhstan’s system of education, offers insight into the opinions of teachers in Kazakhstan about these issues, and examines the Kazakhstani government’s attempt to rectify these challenges with increased funding. My paper topic deserves attention because today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders, and that means that we must all strive to make them as knowledgeable, skilled, and competent as possible.

References

Kamanga, Joseph. (n.d.) Educational challenges in Kazakhstan. Broken Chalk. https://brokenchalk.org/educational-challenges-in-kazakhstan-2/

Prime Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2024, October 30). Majilis approves law on republican budget for 2025-2027. https://primeminister.kz/en/news/mazhilis-odobril-zakon-o-respublikanskom-byudzhete-na-2025-2027-gody-29247

Send message to Author

Abstract

Graduate-tracking systems are increasingly viewed as a pillar of quality assurance across Central Eurasia, yet little empirical research has examined how individual universities operationalise these systems or translate graduate outcome data into institutional change. This paper offers the first in-depth analysis of employment-monitoring practices at Ala-Too International University (AIU) in Bishkek and situates them within the wider post-Soviet policy landscape.

Using a convergent mixed-methods design, integrated(1) quantitative employment indicators extracted from AIU’s Personal Management System (PMS) and alumni survey data collected from 2020–2021 onward, covering four graduating cohorts (2021–2024; N = 2,487), with (2) 22 semi-structured interviews conducted with faculty, alumni-office staff, and senior administrators. Triangulating these datasets reveals both the technical capabilities of AIU’s digital infrastructure and the organisational logics that shape data collection, validation, and use.

Findings show that AIU has achieved a relatively high response rate (≈ 68%) through mandatory exit surveys and alumni-network incentives, but still struggles with long-term follow-up and cross-faculty data standardisation. Regression analysis indicates that programme-level curriculum reviews triggered by PMS evidence are associated with a 7-point increase in graduate full-employment within one year. Nonetheless, interviewees emphasise that siloed data ownership and limited analytical capacity constrain broader strategic planning.

By comparing AIU’s evolving model with Uzbekistan’s national HEMIS platform and nascent initiatives in Kazakhstan, the paper demonstrates how scalable, centralised frameworks can mitigate fragmentation while respecting institutional autonomy. The study proposes viewing graduate-tracking not as bureaucratic compliance but as a feedback mechanism linking labour-market intelligence, curricular design, and accreditation.

Send message to Author

Abstract

This paper explores the historical and ideological transformations in Kyrgyzstan’s education system since the collapse of the Soviet Union, with a particular focus on language policy, cultural identity, and the need for decolonial reform. Drawing on personal narrative and insights gained from participation in the “Esimde” platform (2024–2025), a collaborative initiative of the “Disrupting Peace” school, the research reflects on how education remains a contested space in the struggle between colonial legacy and national self-definition.

The Soviet model imposed a centralized, Russian-dominant education system that suppressed local languages, histories, and knowledge systems. After gaining independence in 1991, Kyrgyzstan faced the challenge of rebuilding its education sector to reflect national values and indigenous identity. The 1989 law recognizing Kyrgyz as the state language marked a critical shift, but its implementation revealed deep-rooted resistance from both Russian-speaking communities and Kyrgyz citizens who had internalized colonial hierarchies. Despite ongoing reforms, Russian remains dominant in public institutions, media, and elite schools—undermining efforts to promote Kyrgyz as the primary language of instruction and communication.

The paper further examines the dual impact of globalization and internationalization on education, particularly the rise of English-medium instruction and Western-style higher education. While these trends offer global mobility and academic advancement, they also introduce a new form of linguistic and cultural marginalization, creating socio-economic divides and weakening the role of the Kyrgyz language in intellectual life.

Through an autoethnographic lens, the author traces personal and generational experiences of navigating post-Soviet schooling, bilingualism, and identity formation. These reflections reveal both the symbolic and practical challenges of decolonizing the education system—from curriculum content to language use, teacher training, and institutional accountability.

The paper argues that meaningful decolonial change requires more than symbolic legislation. It calls for systemic reform including mandatory Kyrgyz-language use in public institutions, culturally responsive pedagogy, and consistent language policies in both rural and urban contexts. Strengthening Kyrgyz-language media, academic resources, and early childhood education is vital for reversing linguistic decline and fostering national identity.

In conclusion, Kyrgyzstan’s education system must serve not only as a means of academic advancement but also as a foundation for cultural survival, linguistic justice, and postcolonial renewal.