Importing education: Europeanisation and the Bologna Process in Europe’s backyard—The case of Kazakhstan

Abstract

This article studies the problem of the implementation of European educational standards in Kazakhstan higher education. This is considered in the frame of post-socialist education, when reforms in several post-Soviet states were undertaken under the Bologna Process. Kazakhstan, as this article argues, is justified for consideration in the frame of those post-Soviet countries involved in the Bologna Process (the Caucasus and the Baltic states) rather than in the context of neighboring Central Asian countries, which is the case found typically in the existing literature. The outcome derives from the nature of educational reforms in Kazakhstan undertaken at the system level similar to those of states that joined the European Higher Education Area. The theme is grounded in the theory of educational policy borrowing and focuses on how the borrowed patterns display themselves in the local Kazakhstan context and how they are “recontextualized” there. This article draws upon the analysis of interviews with teaching professionals conducted in four Kazakhstan higher education institutions. While the typical package of the standards of the Bologna Process to be implemented includes a wide range of norms, this article is limited by the analysis of the implementation of a testing system in Kazakhstan higher education.

Approaches to the study of educational borrowing in Kazakhstan

The effects of the collapse of the socialist bloc played an important role in educational transfers in the world. While it is obvious that actual globalization and the collapse of the socialist bloc occurred simultaneously, it is a matter of a separate discussion of ‘whether the process of globalization and the collapse of the Soviet Union were merely coincidental, or are related in some manner’ (Yechury, 2006: 121).

With the emergence of “the second world” (Khanna, 2008), as it is argued in this article, the reasons for educational transfer changed. Integration (and re-integration) with Europe is considered one of the main causes of this for the most post-socialist countries, particularly in the East European and Baltic states. For example, the leitmotif for the Baltic countries was a “return to Europe” (Silova, 2011), where re-integration with the West seemed natural due to the shared European values and cultural commonality, not to mention the accompanying goal of weakening Russia’s influence.

Consequently, the term “educational borrowing” took on its direct meaning, when most post-socialist countries voluntarily adopted international educational models or practices. It is argued here that the collapse of the socialist system made possible the globalization of education, thereby intensifying the increase of case studies on educational policy borrowing and bolstering the theory of educational policy borrowing.

Before this collapse, educational transfer was mostly considered within traditional comparative education as a transfer of education policy from the first world to the third world, or through the prism of educational transfer from advanced countries to their former colonies.

The works by Silova are significant in the course of this article, because she is one of the first to contribute to the understanding of educational policy borrowing in post-soviet countries. In her interpretation of post-socialist educational reforms, Silova (2002a) points out on the necessity of recognizing the dynamic interaction between international pressures for westernization and the constraints imposed by Soviet legacies To investigate educational borrowing by the post-Soviet countries she employs a complex theoretical perspective, adopted from comparative education, political sociology and history, in order to examine complicated interactions between the global and the local (2004: 76). These perspectives are: (a) the culturalist perspective on educational borrowing in the context of globalization; (b) the effects of Soviet institutional and cultural legacies; and (c) discursive power.

Following the works of Steiner-Khamsi (2000), Silova references Luhmann’s (1990) theory of self-referential systems and Schriewer’s (1990) work on externalization. Silova notes that “educational borrowing is not necessarily imposed, but can be used by the local agency as a mechanism for meeting its own needs” (2004: 76). She concludes that the local agency is not a “helpless victim,” controlled by global forces; instead they pursue their own interests by manipulating global forces. This point is repeatedly found in her case studies (2000b, 2004, 2005).

Recognizing as an obvious fact the diversity of the post-socialist countries, and the Central Asian ones in particular, Silova points out on the one hand that while “features vary from place to place, they do exist (at least discursively) in most countries of the region” and there is a need for international, regional and national focus (Silova and Steiner-Khamsi, 2008: 18). On the other hand, she acknowledges that the acceptance of this diversity as a “starting point of comparative analysis” undermines the established Western theoretical framework:

Notwithstanding the claims of global convergence, post-socialism remains a space for increasing divergence and difference, where complex interactions between the global and the local persistently undermine all linear predictions. … when we take divergence and diversity as a starting point of comparative analysis (leaving convergence theories behind), westernization frameworks lose their explanatory power, failing to recognize sufficiently the essential ambiguity of post-socialist change (Silova, 2010: 8–9).

Several notable observations of an undiscerning interpretation originating from the established cliché of perceiving Central Asian countries as somehow being one common body (in the geographical sense too), and thus approving the necessity of recognition for the differences between countries, can be considered here.

One example is the conclusion, generalized from the Kyrgyzstan example, where it is argued that “in developing countries, the import of traveling reforms or globalize education needs to be interpreted in terms of the economics of policy borrowing” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012: 46), meaning that the reforms in such countries become possible “only to secure external funding from donors and only for the duration that such funding remains available” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012: 46).

This, however, contradicts the deal with international aid in Kazakhstan, which in 1999 turned to financing education and health sector reforms with internal resources and announced a substantial reduction in the number of loans from international donors (Kalikova and Silova, 2008: 138). This made Kazakhstan one of the most donor-independent countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus. As a consequence, the influence of international financial institutions on the government has also declined (Kalikova and Silova, 2008: 138).

The main problematic about Kazakhstan in the existing literature is seen in mismatching this country to the traditional framework of Central Asia found among western educationalists. On the one hand, educational reforms in Kazakhstan are considered in the context of those in other Central Asian states, represented by Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (Heynemann, 2011; Silova, 2005, 2011; Steiner-Khamsi and Stolpe, 2006; Steiner-Khamsi et al., 2006; Tomusk, 2011). This approach is obviously based on the geographical criteria of all these countries, alongside cultural and historical shared characteristics.

My point of view, however, is that the reforms in Kazakhstan should be considered on the criteria of the structural changes close to those in states of the Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) or the Baltic states. This position is based on the fact that the reforms in Kazakhstan are undertaken at all levels of education (schooling, tertiary and high education) rather than randomly; they are financed from the inner country recourses, unlike in the neighboring Central Asian countries, such as in Kyrgyzstan (Drummond, 2011), and they are grounded in the adopted legislation basis.

So, the challenge here is which of the criteria best serves the assessment of Kazakhstan’s processes: whether it is a geographical belonging or the character of structural changes. While this issue may seem unimportant in a general approach to the entire post-socialist bloc, it makes sense in a study which has Kazakhstan educational reforms as the core object.

Even though the geographical similarity of Central Asian countries seems clear, a more discerning approach is necessary here. It is inaccurate to say the least to form the conclusion that Kazakhstan joined the Bologna Process due to its good friends and natural resources, impacting on “international agreements and geography” (Tomusk, 2011: 58–59).

The overestimation of the capacities of this country’s leader, who “succeeded (in) changing the map of Europe” (Tomusk, 2011: 59), seems too exaggerated. Obviously this view is based on simple ignorance of the real geographical location of the country, whose territory is partly located in Eastern Europe (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 2010). So, joining the Bologna Process for Kazakhstan became possible owing to this mere fact of geography¹ rather than “the level of political entrepreneurship the President of this now formerly Central Asian country is in a position to command” (Tomusk, 2008: 59). Thus, it can be claimed that geographic location played a role in the case of the Caucasus countries regarding their joining the Bologna Process.

It is fitting to mention the term “Kazakhstan and Middle Asia,” which was formed in Soviet social sciences and refers to the separation of Kazakhstan from the other four states of the region (PCGN, 2006). This notion also differentiated Kazakhstan’s location, thereby emphasizing the specifics of that country. While the term “Central Asia” is common in western sources, it misleads some experts about this country, even in a geographical sense.

As can be seen from the above examples, uninformed interpretations about Kazakhstan regarding its educational reforms have a place as well. When claiming there are national differences, Silova’s recognition remains when she states her own interpretation of Central Asia (2005). As is argued in this article, the greatest point of misunderstanding in the scholar’s interpretation of Kazakhstan’s educational reformation is seeing it as a single movement or one policy: “The driving force behind all these reforms has been the creation of a new education space, symbolizing Kazakhstan’s movement to ‘European’ education standards” (Silova, 2005: 53). That is to say, Kazakhstan’s target is the complete reconstruction of its education system being recognised as one of the national priorities, rather than implementing separate initiatives out of a fear of falling behind internationally (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012; Steiner-Khamsi et al., 2006).

This can hardly be perceived as a mere symbolic movement towards Europe when huge sums from the state budget are allocated to restructuring the country’s educational system (both schooling and higher education), along with the creation of a legitimate basis.

The misinterpretation of the sense of actual reforms in education in Kazakhstan, in my view, is the crucial point in the approach. The country’s real context is neglected in favor of the simplistic grouping of distinct developing states for the simple reason of their geographic closeness. This is not said with reference to the quality of these reforms, which is a subject for a separate discourse, but to the real foundation and rationale for them. The inaccurate interpretation is visible when viewing the educational reforms as a trajectory of borrowing international models, when in fact they are a part of the reconstruction of the entire educational system under European standards, which is a national priority and an integral part of the entire state’s policy, similar to the Caucasus and eastern European post-socialist countries due to the shift to a market economy; in other words, from socialism to capitalism.

Therefore, educational transfers in the case of certain post-socialist countries should be considered in a more global view, where reform occurs not only for political reasons (Phillips and Ochs, 2003, 2004; Steiner-Khamsi, 2012; Steiner-Khamsi and Stolpe, 2006; Steiner-Khamsi et al., 2006) or economic ones (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012; Steiner-Khamsi and Stolpe, 2006), but for more profound reasons – to use international (European) models as the standard for educational system restructuring. This can be observed in those countries where restructuring is taking place at a state-wide, systematic level.

The research

The Bologna Process is traditionally associated with a particular set of actions which promotes the uniformity and convergence of all higher educational institutions engaging in it. This package of actions involves the establishment of a three-cycle system of higher education within a qualifications framework; promotion mobility; development quality assurance; increased employability; development of the European higher education area (EHEA) in a global context; development of joint degrees; recognition of qualifications; social dimension; and lifelong learning (Jones, 2011: 78).

However, higher education reformations in the post-Soviet countries obviously go beyond this main package of the Bologna Process and refer to a wider Europeanization in education. For example, a testing system which existed prior to their joining the EHEA and which seems natural for European institutions is not a part of the Bologna Process package, but is instead a novelty in the post-Soviet area, and its implementation is considered as a part of the whole reformation process in education under the European standards.

The scope of this article cannot allow the inclusion of the data analysis of all the topics which constitute my doctoral thesis, such as the implementation of a testing system, academic research under new standards, teaching loads under new standards, academic mobility, the ministerial governance, institutions’ performance, and a language issue. Here I focus on the analysis of the implementation of a testing system.

My research questions focus on identifying the problems of implementing the testing system in Kazakhstan higher education (HE) practice, as identified in the narratives of the direct actors of the implementation process, the teaching staff for Kazakhstan higher education institutions (HEIs). This paper aims to understand how the borrowed educational patterns play out in HE in Kazakhstan, unfolding the global rhetoric in a local practice.

Methodology

The main tool for data collection was a semi-structured interview, which is the most appropriate method for research on personal attitudes and evaluations. The group of respondents consisted of approximately 38 professionals of 30–70 years old, involved in teaching activity in Kazakhstan HEIs. The places for interview were four Kazakhstan universities, located in different parts of the country.

The interview consisted of 18 questions, divided into three groups of queries. The first two questions asked general information about the respondent and their attitude to reforms on the whole. The majority of the questions focused on particular parts of the reformation, such as three-level education, credit technology, academic mobility, academic publications, teaching activity under new conditions, research activity, and testing systems. The final part of the interview was devoted to the evaluations of two educational systems and whether participants would support the return to the Soviet educational system if this was a possibility.

Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 2001, 2003) was applied as the main method for the analysis of interviews. This method assumes that texts are objects for a discursive view on social life. Language is in turn considered as a form of social practice where language and society interrelate with one another.

While proposing a three-dimensional framework for discourse analysis such as text, discursive practice and social practice, Fairclough emphasized the importance of discursive practice “to make explanatory connections between the nature of the discourse processes in particular instances, and the nature of the social practices they are a part of” (1992: 80).

In my attempt to apply critical discourse analysis (CDA), discursive practice is an agent which is used to disclose answers to the research questions for this thesis, which means that through texts (interviews) I try to detect a real social practice behind the existing problems in it.

Because one of the research questions is to identify the problems of the implementation of educational patterns, such as a testing, the linking point was found by connecting the extracts on the basis of their problematic content. As a result, the problem-centered extracts were my main focus. Also, a reason for this criterion is derived from Fairclough’s recommendation, which I follow:

One selection strategy which has much to recommend it is to focus on what I earlier called “cruces” and “moments of crises”. These are moments in the discourse where there is evidence that things are going wrong: a misunderstanding which requires participants to “repair” a communicative problem, for example through asking for or offering repetitions, or through one participant correcting another; exceptional disfluencies (hesitations, repetitions) in the production of a text; silences; sudden shifts of style. In addition to the evidence of the text and of the participants’ conduct of the interaction, one might again use panel judgements or participants’ retrospective judgements about points of difficulty. Such moments of crisis make visible aspects of practices which might normally be naturalized, and therefore difficult to notice; but they also show change in process, the actual ways in which people deal with the problematization of practices (1992: 230).

Analysis

The testing system is one of the core issues which the Kazakhstan HE teachers have dealt with from the very beginning of the educational reforms. While the testing system itself has found both supporters and opponents among Kazakhstan professionals, I draw upon teachers’ evaluations in order to focus on the problem of its implementation. Noticeably, in the interviews of those who positively evaluate the testing system, no substantial or problematic issues are detected, while critical assessments on the implementation of the testing system are mostly found in those interviews where negative perceptions of the introduction of a testing system into the Kazakhstan education practice prevail.

One such problematic interview is with a professional from a capital university who combines his roles as a teacher with heading a sub-faculty in science. His interview is included here because his views are not only those of an ordinary teacher, but also the head of a sub-division, and he therefore also talks about the problems at a more generalized level. As with some other participants, he is a person who was educated across different times, namely in both the Soviet and the post-Soviet period.

1. Interviewer: What do you think about testing?

2. DE: About testing? … Well, testing as an alternative, as an auxiliary method it is not bad … But it is elevated to some absolute and this is a nonsense, of course. Sometimes people just suffer from such an extremism: test … anti-corruption. People likely struggle with corruption, but break all… In fact, one might even say, [people] breed corruption … in an attempt to combat it. A corruption … I can account for our department, we have no corruption. Even … [if it] happened … people who came here from other departments, for part-time work or something, if there were any rumors we work with them to avoid such … even [we] expelled [them]. At least for the department we respond.

3. Interviewer: How to check the students’ knowledge then, to your mind?

4. DE: A regular exam… Testing as well … or a written exam. Well, it is most important that there are no cribs but we have a tradition which turns. With cribs [there are] very big problems.

5. Interviewer: Which measures do you undertake for this?

6. DE: Measures?… Here a student uses a cheat sheet… to oust him… Many [students] also use it. Because of this, this system of funding hampers us a great deal … Because if we expel half of the students we would be twice reduced … in funding, and for many projects we have no money left … the university. So it turns out like a hara-kiri… That’s bad.

This extract contains several discourses, which provoke further analysis in this paper. Here the respondent’s speech is given in a generalized manner rather than personally. For example, he uses the pronoun “I” only once (turn 2), replacing it instead with the more general “we” in the other turns, while “we” in turn is used to refer to the university (“… we have no money left… the university”). The use of “we” instead of “I” in this case informs us about his choice of primarily positioning himself with the staff of the university. Such positioning (“I with my colleagues”) assumes a joint responsibility for all in the department for the actions undertaken within it (in phrases “… we have no corruption,” “we work with them to avoid such,” “[we] expelled [them]. At least for the department we respond”). However, “we” used in this way could equally refer to the whole community of teaching professionals.

On the other hand, “we” exists in contrast to others, “people”, which is stressed again many times. Talking about them impersonally the respondent positions them in a negative light because he suggests they do wrong things (“people just suffer … from such an extremism,” “People likely struggle with corruptions, but break all,” “… [people] breed corruption … in an attempt to combat it”). By “people” he means those who introduced a testing system in education “to combat corruption,” some external power. In this context, by default only the Ministry of Education can be assumed to be responsible. Being critical about the actions of this power, at the same time DE avoids naming it directly. This can then inform us about inevitability of the Ministry’s authority and teachers’ compelled surrender to its rules. This assumption is proved in the last turn, when the interviewee talks about the impossibility of kicking bad students out of institutions, otherwise teachers will have their funding reduced, which is again in the hands of the Ministry. The respondent clearly vocalizes this situation, naming it “hara-kiri”, and in fact he is disclosing the real situation in Kazakhstan education, where institutions are in the position of double dependence, both from the Ministry and students. The thought which can clearly be read from his statements is that teachers are required to submit to the Ministry’s inadequate rules.

Remarkably, while DE recognizes the value of a testing system (turn 2) by saying “but”, he sets a contrast between the positive evaluation and a new discourse by linking it to the issue of fighting with corruption.

This shift to the issue of corruption is interesting. It allows an assumption that the testing system in Kazakhstan HE is not implemented for educational reasons only, and it also serves as a means for fighting with distortion in education.

DE, in this regard being the head of a sub-faculty, takes responsibility for his department, stating “…I can account for our department, we have no corruption.” Whereas in Kazakhstan HEIs a sub-faculty is only a part of a department and the head of the former does not take responsibility for the latter, such a statement can be perceived from various points. He either knows for certain or feels sufficient confidence in all of his departmental colleagues to state that they are not affected by corruption, or he subconsciously demonstrates his responsibility for all of his colleagues and thus demonstrates his accountability for their actions. Another assumption here could be that he wants to assure me as an outsider that their department is not involved in corruption, while in reality the corruption might supposedly exist. While this assumption may seem valid as well, it is not likely to be the case, or at least corruption should not exist to the same degree as previously. As another respondent states:

The positive sign is that testing … at least in the eyes of students has more objectivity. Objectivity not so much in terms of knowledge held by students as objectivity in the “teacher–student” relationship… than an oral exam… it is just my opinion… students can put into question: how objectively a teacher assessed… That’s a plus [of testing] (MG).

According to MG, a testing system is used as a means against corruption in the Kazakhstan context, and it is possible that it justifies itself in this. However, this discussion is important in terms of the reasons for the borrowing of international educational patterns by a local authority.

The fact that the respondents link testing to a corruption issue raises assumptions about the presence of corruption in the Kazakhstan HE system prior to the use of tests, and shows that testing was introduced to combat this:

…Well, why was the written form introduced? N² fought against corruption. When he arrived, [there were] terrible complaints about corruption… (IR).

This raises the question of how borrowed patterns are “re-contextualized” (Schriewer and Martinez, 2004), and thus affected by local features. The positioning of a testing system in such a way is seen as being beyond its normal application, which then provokes an assumption of the purpose of the implementation of tests in Kazakhstan HE.

Testing to such a degree was intended to totally replace the oral examinations in Kazakhstan which were inherited from the Soviet system. While oral exams are affected by subjectivity in a student assessment, and were something which certainly had a place in the Soviet practice although it had never been officially recognized, what students and parents are faced with in the post-Soviet time is that corruption in education increased severely. Heyneman, characterizing the post-Soviet HE situation, states that:

Corruption was anticipated in many public services and functions, but the spread of corruption in the education sector has been a shock. No one in 1991 anticipated the depth to which this disease would take over or the impact it would have on the reputation of the higher education systems. This is particularly true in Central Asia… (2010: 81).

The necessity of coping with corruption in the Kazakhstan education system was important for different reasons. To the generally acknowledged normal understanding that corruption is beyond moral principles, another important cause which pushed the Kazakhstan education authority to resolve the problem was the strive to join the Bologna Process, because education corruption “may in fact bring the Bologna process to a halt” (Heyneman, 2010: 81). Testing in Kazakhstan education was seen as something which was likely to resolve the corruption problems.

As a researcher, I was also interested to know how the testing system plays out as a method for student learning assessment.

Traditionally, in the Soviet system the student assessment would mean being evaluated through oral examinations only. This was the only method for knowledge control at all education levels: in schools, tertiary and higher education. Oral examinations were used as an assessment after the completion of the course, after the graduation of schools or institutions, and for admissions to the latter. The only alternative to this was a written quiz, which was usually only used for inter-term assessments and after the completion of a thematic unit.

From the very beginning of its implementation, a testing system was introduced as a method, which meant totally replacing oral exams. It is what the respondent (DE) names “extremism” in Kazakhstan education reforms in the attempt to fix problems. Such an extreme use of testing meant the complete displacement of traditional exams as testing spread across all disciplines, something which caused different reactions from the teachers.

As can be seen from the extracts above (DE, MG), testing only partly provided improvement in the practice of student assessment. The continuation of this discourse is found in another interview:

1. Interviewer: Does it mean that testing has helped to conquer corruption?

2. IR: Much, much… Well, yes, [we] defeated corruption, but what is next? Anyway, I suggest, we should think further about these exams… Maybe it can be some kind of a written–oral form… Well, there is such a course, in short… learn how to speak on the radio. Something like speech technology it is called. It is passed in a writing form. How many years we fought [with this], and every year they promise: “yes, yes”… And because [they] cannot even do it for one subject…, that’s all this huge system … and [they] all promise only. So I think many departments have such subject.

3. Interviewer: Do you conduct testing?

4. IR: …yes, unfortunately… Well, there are two majors – like sisters – relatives: journalism and public relations [PR]. In PR it gives a very high effect, because in PR there is sociology and economics involved, crisis management and consulting… That is, you can test well. But journalism, where the majority of courses are in a creative direction … And through testing it is very difficult. I know the feedbacks of our naturalists – everyone is excited about the tests because it gives the highest results, Immediately it is getting obvious what and how. And besides, tests are constantly shaken up… changed according to the changed programs… That is, if I recall the same thing in America and Germany… Yeah…When I told them that we apply tests for journalism they were shocked. They said: “but how?” I showed and explained to them that we have open and closed tests, how they work… They said: “no, no, no, nothing like that…” Although we are told that in America and Germany, testing is applied everywhere… No, there every university is a host. Almost every teacher is a master of his subject and considers whether it needs testing and in what form.

Here one may see how the testing system is implemented in Kazakhstan education as an assessment tool. In turn 4, when the respondent refers to international experience (America and Germany), he notes that “…we are told that in America and Germany, everywhere testing is applied…” while he personally states that this was not a case. This statement gives an assumption of why Kazakhstan teachers are told to practice testing across all disciplines (because it “is applied everywhere”), and this again informs us about the relationship between the Ministry and the institutions, the discussion of which will be studied later. Behind this is the idea that either the Ministry imposes the standards without acknowledging the different experiences in varied countries, or it does it purposefully to diminish teachers’ possible resistance to practice testing.

In turn 4 the discourse shifts to the problem of the irrelevant use of testing in some courses. In the case of the department which IR works for, one such course where testing seems inappropriate is speech technology, because of the creative specifics of the disciplines. He distinguishes between creative courses such as journalism and the courses of natural science, emphasizing that testing is appropriate in the latter, while in the former it is not. Saying “unfortunately”, he informs us that he (and likely all his colleagues too) is forced to use testing, which was imposed indifferently on all disciplines. This thought is repeated many times by other interviewees.

However, such a discourse creates two assumptions. The first is that, as has already been discussed, there are indeed some disciplines where testing is not applicable, and which the respondents find confirmed when referring to their experience of Germany, France or the USA. As a result, IR considers the use of testing as a poor experience (“…yes, unfortunately”).

The second assumption is that tests are not applied appropriately. This assumption is seen to be valid because most respondents consider a testing system as being like playing a lottery:

I have a very negative attitude to this [testing]. Students are happy when they test and upset when they have an oral exam… Because on the oral exam they need to open notes and prepare as needed. But they pass tests in a flash and still get normal marks. Well, judge yourself ! By looking at their reactions! But for a teacher it takes so [much] labor to make these tests. Tests… it’s somewhere…mm… guessing. Can a normal exam draw on guessing? (EN)

From this point of view it is clear that testing is easier for students, because to a certain degree it is a guessing game, or “a lottery”, as another respondent says. Clearly, the test should not be a guessing game (“Can a normal exam draw on guessing?”), but an adequate assessment of students’ abilities. However, why tests have become a lottery has generated a new issue here, namely how tests are made up, which is the subject of a separate article.

Conclusion

The analysis shows that the education reforms in the post-Soviet area can be more complicated than in other parts of the world which are untouched by the Soviet mentality. The role of these factors is twofold: first, they inevitably exist in the reformation process; and secondly, they impart their specificity to the reforms.

The implementation of a testing system in Kazakhstan HE showed several contradictions. First, the testing system was introduced to resolve the problem of corruption in education. Thus, the reason for borrowing testing was to resolve not only educational problems, but also local moral distortion. This confirms one of the ideas about the borrowing theory involving “recontextualization” of the borrowed patterns in a local context. This is also sound in accordance with the statement of Silova (2004) that local authorities often use educational borrowing to meet their own needs.

While such use of testing helped to improve a moral situation in education, it did not bring strong improvements to student assessment. In addition, the interviews demonstrate that the borrowing of international patterns in education is often imposed by the Ministry of Education without consideration of the specifics of disciplines, causing teachers’ lack of support for the process. At the same time, the respondents expressed their disregard toward the Ministerial decisions. A Ministerial approach such as this to the implementation of a testing system across all the disciplines may also be determined by the fight against corruption and not for educational purposes. Thus, while the educational patterns are borrowed to solve the problems in local education, they play out differently in this context. It is inevitable then that borrowed patterns become a subject of “recontextualization” in a local context.

1. A geographic location such as this allows the country to be a member of other European associations; some such examples are the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA).

2. N is an ex-Minister of Education and Science in Kazakhstan. His appointment is linked to the main reforms in education.