Internationalization of schools in Russia

Abstract

Whereas Russian universities have mostly adopted the paradigm of internationalization in higher education that is now widespread in Europe and worldwide, the internationalization of schools in Russia is more complex and ambiguous. This article addresses the questions about the main characteristics of the internationalization of schools in Russia and investigates how the concept of international education and internationalization of schools has developed over time with regard to the interaction of policies, pedagogical models and practices in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia. It takes a closer systematic look at the landscape of the internationalization of schools and different types of schools with an international profile (global competitiveness type, human-oriented type, and language-oriented type) and explores the development of school profiles in mainstream schools far from Russian megacities. Lastly, the article provides reflections on the internationalization of schools in Russia in the context of educational policy in post-socialist Russia, neoliberal reforms and Russia’s search for a new position in a globalized world. The research is based on a review of literature and data from a small-scale empirical study of mainstream schools in a medium-sized city.

Introduction

At present, the internationalization of education is a strategic direction for the development of educational institutions in most countries all over the world. Initially, this development was discussed primarily with regard to higher education. Harari (1989) singled out three main elements in the concept of internationalization of higher education: presence of an international component in the content of curricula and programs, international mobility of students and teachers, and availability of technical cooperation and mutual assistance programs. Knight (2004) defined internationalization in higher education as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight, 2004: 25).

In the last decade the discourse about internationalization has spread to other sectors of education including K-12 school education. Before that, the term “internationalization” was seldom used to conceptualize how schools reacted to international developments and integrated intercultural, multilingual, European and global dimensions into curriculum and the organization of schooling within the education system. Still, the phenomenon of internationalization has been discussed widely in other theoretical frameworks in educational research such as intercultural and multicultural education, international education and international schools, European dimension of education (e.g. Hayden and Thompson 1998; Hayden et al., 2015; Hornberg, 1999; Hornberg, 2010; Ryba, 1992; Savvides, 2008) and in the framework of Comparative Education (Caruso and Tenorth, 2002). The definition of internationalization that was used for higher education (Knight, 2004) became too narrow for other sectors of education, and the revised concept of internationalization (Yemini, 2015) has sharpened the focus on the process and outcomes of the internationalization (e.g. global citizenship).

Deppe et al. (2017) outline the main lines of the discourse about the internationalization in education with regard to elite education and stress among other research gaps the need for a comparative perspective “to understand how particular histories, structures and policies shape articulations of elite forms of education and current movements within and between systems of education” (Deppe et al., 2017: 3). This perspective seems to be promising not only regarding elite education but also in relation to other areas of internationalization, in particular to school education. Filippov argues that leading developed countries consider the provision and expansion of internationalization as one of the most important directions of their educational policy, the development and implementation of which take into account primarily national interests, as well as the needs and real opportunities of its own education system (Filippov, 2015: 204). Engel and Siczek (2018) point out that there is a growing number of countries that have recently developed national-level policies promoting international education and examine in a cross-national comparison national-level strategies concerning internationalization of education in Australia, Canada, Ireland, the UK and the USA with the focus on global citizenship. Aguiar and Nogueira (2012) and Potter and Hayden (2004) address in their research differences with regard to meanings of internationalization of schools in developing countries. There are empirical studies about internationalization of schools in different sectors in Israel (Yemini, 2014; Yemini and Fulop, 2015). The authors in the review of internationalization in secondary education ( Oonket al., 2011) provide case studies on internationalization policy in England, France, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Poland. Oonk et al. (2011) apply the international and comparative perspective to internationalization of secondary school education. The authors address questions about the characteristics of internationalization policy at national and European levels and related educational concepts, differences between the internationalization policies of large and small member states, internationalization in old and new member states, competences and related curricular elements for the promotion of the European and international orientation, and effects of internationalization for secondary education in Europe (Oonk et al., 2011).

However, such comparative studies require country-specific data and their contextualization. In the case of Russia we can identify a research gap. In the Russian scholarly discourse regarding secondary schools, the term “internationalization” is used infrequently, as it is mostly connotated with the system of higher education. Still, the situation is currently changing and internationalization is becoming an important strategy not only for the system of higher education, but also for secondary schools.

This article aims at answering the following main research question: What are the main characteristics of the internationalization of schools in Russia? In particular, we investigate how the concept of international education and internationalization of schools has developed over time in connection with the interaction of policies, pedagogical models and practices in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia. We also take a closer systematic look at the current landscape of internationalization of schools and different types of schools with an international profile and explore the development of school profiles in mainstream schools far from Russian megacities. Lastly, we reflect on the internationalization of schools in Russia in the context of educational policy in post-socialist Russia, neoliberal reforms and the search for a new position for Russia in a globalized world.

The research is based on a review of literature and its theoretical reflection against the background of the international research about internationalization of schools, and on data from a small-scale empirical study of mainstream schools in a medium-size city.

Development of international education and internationalization of schools in Russia: A short historical overview

A comprehensive history of internationalization in school education in Russia has not been written yet (an attempt to reconstruct the development of progressive ideals of international education with the focus on preschool education can be found in the dissertation by Bogomolova (2003)). Still, a short historical overview helps to contextualize the past and present developments and discourses on this issue.

The roots of the Soviet model of international education can be traced back to proletarian internationalism. Proletarian internationalism is linked with the idea of a world revolution and the notion of stateless communism. Despite the initial idea that the Russian revolution would spread to other countries and create a global socialist movement, it soon became clear that this vision was very far from political implementation. Still, education towards understanding of class solidarity with workers in all countries remained programmatic in education and constituted the foundation of the concept of internaсional’noe vospitanie. The term internaсional’noe vospitanie can be translated as international education, but one should bear in mind that vospitanie (also often translated as upbringing) stresses moral education/character-forming and is closely linked with normative values (Halstead, 1994). After the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II patriotism in the construction of socialist society became more important. Worth mentioning here is the campaign against “rootless cosmopolitanism”—combined with anti-Semitic notion—in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when Soviet intellectuals were accused of anti-patriotism and “kneeling before the West” and denounced even for dealing with foreign literature, theories etc. and for having international contacts. This campaign, together with the Soviet cultural doctrine developed by Central Committee secretary Zhdanov in 1946, which divided the world into the “imperialistic” camp led by the United States and the “democratic” camp led by the Soviet Union, influenced the further development of patriotic and international education. The goal of preparing of highly educated and developed builders of communism required a moral education that was fit for the purpose. Given the multi-ethnic and multilingual composition of the Soviet Union, it was declared a goal to create a new Soviet identity based on the commitment to socialist internationalism. In the following decades, Soviet patriotism and proletarian internationalism constituted two correlated principles of Soviet education (Anweiler, 1992: 30) and were merged as a dialectic unity of socialist patriotism and socialist internationalism into a concept of international-patriotic education (cf. Babanskij, 1988: 163). Since the world revolution remained an unfilled vision, internationalism was practiced predominantly with Eastern European countries that followed the route of socialism and with post-colonial states in Africa and Asia that were supported by the Soviet Union.

Kuc (2012) analyzed the theory and practice of international education in the Soviet Union in the 1960s–1980s. At the beginning of the 1960s, the Iron Curtain opened somewhat and larger groups of young people became involved in international cooperation (youth festivals and exchanges, international conferences, intensification of learning of foreign languages). According to Kuc, the term international also referred to the cooperation of different nations that constituted the Soviet Union (Kuc, 2012: 13). An important role in this process was played by international youth organizations that were initiated and/or supported by the Soviet Union, for example, the International Committee of Children’s and Adolescents’ Movements, generally known by its French name Comité international des mouvements d’enfants et d’adolescents (CIMEA) which belongs to the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY). Clubs of International Friendship (Klub international’noj druzhby, KID) were established in schools and Young Pioneer Palaces. The KIDs involved pupils who were interested in learning about the life of their peers in other Soviet republics and in other countries and wanted to know more about the countries whose languages they had studied in school. The most visible international activities in KIDs were pen friendships, “imagined travel” to other Soviet republics and socialist countries, meetings with participants of travels abroad, weeks of foreign languages, and theater plays. Even though KIDs had to be in line with the ideology to avoid possible critical issues, in the everyday practice of international education, teachers and pedagogues appealed to the humanity and solidarity of children and youth with peers abroad, and in particular with the poor and oppressed. Kuc (2012) concludes that KIDs became a very important feature of international education between the 1960s and 1980s. The activities of KIDs and other examples of international activities in Russia contributed to the internationalization of schools. The analysis demonstrates a systematic integration of curricular and extra-curricular activities and an intensive cooperation between formal and non-formal education (the latter predominantly politically led by the youth organizations of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) both in thematic and operational aspects of international education.

A number of schools developed interesting approaches to international education that were reported as best practice in the pedagogical press of that time, but the effects of such activities on the internationalization of schools as development of school profiles should not be overestimated. The reason for this is that for ideological reasons any official differentiation among schools was unwanted (Glowka, 1970: 149) This is particularly visible in the controversial discourse on the establishment of schools with an in-depth study of selected subjects, for example, schools with advanced study of foreign languages. For ideological and financial reasons the possibilities for the use of authentic learning materials from abroad, direct interactions with peers from other countries and international mobility were very limited.

Another aspect that influenced internationalization activities in Soviet schools was the dominant position of the Russian language. The shift in favor of Russian nationalism under Stalin after 1938 led to the implementation of compulsory instruction in the Russian language in the schools of non-Russian republics. The Russian language became the lingua franca of inter-ethnic communication and understanding in the Soviet Union. After World War II, the Russian language became the dominant foreign language in schools in Eastern European countries so that international activities (e.g. international pen friendship, pupil exchange and international meetings) could benefit from the language competence of partners abroad, and so that the lack of communicative competence of Soviet pupils and teachers in foreign languages could be compensated

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the growing national revival and separatist movements in multi-ethnic Russia, and the radical neoliberal economic, political, and social reforms led to de-ideologization and decentralization in education with the focus on institutional autonomy, innovation and accountability. The new reform philosophy was set in the Law on Education amended in 1992. In the 1990s, educational reforms promoted education by choice when parents could choose among governmental and non-state schools with different profiles (specializations). As a movement towards the re-creation of national identity of ethnic groups in regions with mostly non-Russian population, schools could develop their school concepts and curricula based on national traditions and local languages (Schmidt, 2001). According to Minina (2017), Russian education that traditionally was regarded as “public good” has been reconceptualized during the liberal reforms of the 1990s “as a ‘competitive private good’ with its organizing principles shifting towards decentralization, privatization, differentiation, diversification and competitive individualism” (Minina, 2017: 103).

Internationalization played an important role in this process. International companies that came to Russia created a demand for international schools to serve expats but also internationally oriented Russian families. Such schools have grown rapidly. For example, the British International School of Moscow was established in April 1994 as a non-state educational institution and consists now of seven schools located in different parts of Moscow. In six of those schools the program is based on the English National Curriculum; there is also a Russian department with a program based on the Russian Federal state educational standards (British International School Moscow, 2018). The ethnic revival led to the establishing of national schools or schools with a national component in large cities, in particular in Moscow, with large groups of Armenians, Koreans, Georgians, Tatars, Jews and other minorities (Schmidt, 2001). Those schools usually promote the language and the culture of the relevant ethnic group and maintain close links to the organizations and representatives of the corresponding national states, thus promoting intercultural education and international activities. School benefited from the growing possibilities to travel abroad and from international projects supported by international foundations and organizations. Studies abroad became a real opportunity for a growing number of Russian students; this also raised the demand for internationally oriented school programs, especially those with a focus on foreign languages.

The reconstruction of the process of internationalization of Russian schools during the 1990s is a challenging task for research because of the variety of policies, programs, projects, initiatives and funding sources at local, regional and federal levels that were hardly regulated and full of contradictions. International curricula and school models filled the vacuum left after the rejection of the Soviet ideology. An example of the developments that were possible in those “wild” times is the International School Project that was implemented in seven countries of the former Soviet Union with the permission and assistance of government officials by a group affiliated with Campus Crusade for Christ, one of the largest non-denominational para-church Christian organizations in the world. In this project, 41,000 educators were trained to teach the Christian morals and ethics curriculum. In 1992, the Russian Ministry of Education expanded this project in cooperation with CoMission, a partnership of over 80 Evangelical organizations. From 1992 to 1997 it was reported that 50,000 Russian educators were trained (Glanzer, 2005: 209). Another example is the moral education curriculum “My world and I” that was developed by the International Educational Foundation and was used in over 10,000 schools in Russia, Mongolia and other the countries of the former Soviet Union (Glanzer, 2005: 209). It was in use until 2000 when the Ministry of Education eventually prohibited it (Glanzer, 2005: 211).

Global education as a related concept to international education has been gradually discussed and introduced in Russian schools and has affected not only the curriculum—with issues of global warming, migration, inter-ethnic conflicts, conflict resolution, diversity etc.—but also encouraged the development of new school profiles. However, the question of how to deal with globalization also raised concerns about the position of Russia in a globalized world and to what degree Russian education should implement international standards or still keep Russian traditions and develop its own independent role (cf. Kolker et al., 2009; Lenskaya, 2009). Schmidtke (2014) identifies “three unofficial but powerful guidelines for global education.”

Globalization is accepted in Russia if it clearly benefits the country and its people. Globalization is not to be engaged in for its own sake or the benefit (real or imagined) of others.

Globalization is acceptable only if strict limits are placed upon it to ensure that Russian culture and identity are not in peril.

Global education is seen as inseparable from multicultural education in the context of a multi-ethnic Russian state. (Schmidtke, 2014: 27)

The period of openness, experiments and diverse developments in terms of international initiatives in school education ended with the new wave of centralization from 2000 on. From the end of the 1990s, patriotic education has experienced a revival in the search for a new civic identity (Rapoport, 2015), whereas international education and its status in schools have remained vague. The combination of internationalism and patriotism appears again in educational discourse and in practice of schools. For example, Zakarʹâeva (2005) developed, implemented and evaluated for her dissertation a model of patriotic and international education of secondary school pupils based on folk traditions by the example of the Republic of Dagestan. She argues that the concepts of patriotism and internationalism have changed since the Soviet era. Using the example of the multi-ethnic Dagestan, she demonstrates that each ethnic group simultaneously relates to several “motherlands” (their ancestral territory, Dagestan as a regional state entity, Northern Caucasus as a shared geographical, cultural and religious space, and finally Russia) and patriotism is inevitably combined with inter-ethnic (international) understanding and friendship with other ethnic groups. Constitutive for patriotic and international education in this region are the multiple experiences of wars and conflicts, in particular the Chechen wars. In this context, patriotic education is related to a readiness to defend the motherland against any enemies, and international education is related to friendship and mutual help of ethnic groups in the neighborhood in case of a war or natural disasters (Zakarʹâeva, 2005: 14). Zakarʹâeva proposes this locally contextualized notion of patriotism and internationalism as a foundation for a new model of patriotic and international education. In her approach, there are only few references to a more global context. One is the reference to Islamic traditions that bring together people of different races and ethnic groups, and countries (Zakarʹâeva, 2005: 14). Another is a negatively connotated reference to the “West.”

Under modern conditions when mass media lead an intensive propaganda of merits of pro-Western culture it is important to comprehensively educate the coming generation towards spiritual and moral values of their ethnic cultures that tie us with our motherland and to develop a critique of elements of cultures that are alien to us and do not meet the specifics and psychology of our folks. (Zakarʹâeva, 2005: 24, translated by Rakhkochkine)

This example is interesting with regard to several aspects. It demonstrates the regional specifics of international education developed and implemented under the political, social and cultural conditions of a region of Russia. Further, it shows a strong connection of patriotic and international education. Finally, it demonstrates the path dependency between the Soviet traditions and the current developments in the discourse and the practice of international education.

The issue of quality of education and international standards continues to influence the discourse on internationalization of schools. Even though regarding the moral education (vospitanie) schools might have turned to ideals of Russian patriotism, the official strategy in terms of the cognitive outcomes of education is to streamline schools by international standards. In 2017, the government of the Russian Federation approved the state program “Development of Education.” The program targets high learning achievements of Russian students in different fields of knowledge according to the international criteria of quality assessment. Within this program, the Russian Federation endeavors to keep a leading position in international assessment studies such as PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) and TIMSS (Trends in International. Mathematics and Science Study). According to the program, the Russian Federation is planning to achieve the following aim: to occupy no lower than position 20 in PISA (Program for International Student Assessment). By achieving these goals, the Russian Federation will strengthen its political position through demonstrating high level of Russian education confirmed by the results of international comparative studies.

Another emerging normative aspect of internationalization is worth mentioning. According to Pevzner et al. (2018), certain risks for the process of internationalization at universities and schools appear in the period of political instability in the world: increased tension in the system of international relations, differences in assessments by the participants in international cooperation of the political and economic events, their nature and consequences, restriction, sometimes even direct prohibition of scientific and educational contacts between partner countries, and violation of traditional economic and cultural ties. Given the new challenges and risks, Pevzner et al. (2018) define the internationalization of education as international solidarity of teachers and students of different countries ensuring high quality of education through international orientation of universities and schools, creation of joint innovation programs and projects, scientific and technical cooperation and academic exchanges. It is the solidarity of those who teach and those who study that can help resist the negative trends of world development (Pevzner et al., 2018).

This overview demonstrates a diversity of approaches towards internationalization in school education and their unfolding in political and socio-cultural settings of educational reforms over time. In the next section, we will try to systematize different lines of internationalization regarding the organizational changes in schools.

Levels of internationalization in Russian schools and types of schools with an international profile

Empirical studies (e.g. Oonk (2004) for the Netherlands, Zymek (2006) for Germany, and Yemini and Fulop (2015) for Israel), demonstrate that mainstream schools differ from each other in their degrees of internationalization. There are no similar systematic empirical studies about schools in Russia so far, but based on some evidence from the literature on international education in Russia and from the expertise of one of the authors in the regional educational authority we suggest that there are three levels of internationalization in Russian schools: fragmentary internationalization, sustainable international activities, and strategic development towards an international profile.

The level of fragmentary internationalization relates to irregular international contacts, sporadic intercultural school events (festivals, international clubs), and occasional international mobility. The first level touches upon the surface of the internationalization process but not the essential features. It does not influence to a considerable degree the curricular development, the quality of education, and the level of intercultural and international competencies acquired by teachers and pupils. In other words, this level is rather uncoordinated and does not consider proper impacts and benefits of activities. The second level implies student and teacher exchange programs, the international dimension in curricula, implementation of the best international practices and new technologies, regular presence of native speakers as teachers’ assistants, and advanced learning of foreign languages. This level enriches the content of school education through international cooperation, fosters professional development of teachers and helps pupils to acquire high level of intercultural competency. The third level is characterized by a systematic development of internationalization activities towards a pedagogical profile. This means that internationalization is systematically embedded into the vision and mission of the school and in its operations and cooperations (Yemini, 2012). Such schools have long-term international cooperation agreements and certifications, internationalized curricula, international educational projects, regular international events, international mobility, and systematical use of all available resources to reach the strategic objectives. The schools on the third level of internationalization usually develop a comprehensive pedagogical profile that may find its manifestation in deep organizational changes or even lead to a higher level of (financial) autonomy and a special status in the school system.

The section on the development of international education in Russian schools demonstrated that there are different pedagogical notions of “international” that underpin the pedagogical profiles of schools. In the research on internationalization of schools in national systems of education (e.g. Hornberg, 2010; Kotzyba et al., 2018) there are attempts to classify different internationalization profiles. In line with such considerations, we suggest that three main types of schools with international profiles can be identified in Russia based primarily on the goals of internationalization: global competitiveness type, human-oriented type, and language-oriented type.

Schools of the global competitiveness type prepare pupils to be competitive in a globalized society and job market. They introduce an international dimension into the learning process by using the world’s best practices. They also participate in joint educational programs and projects and pay attention to the international standards of quality assessment. Many school leavers, who are deeply engaged in different kinds of international activities, have higher results at the national exams and enter the high-ranking universities. Schools also implement international educational programs and certificates that are recognized in various countries of the world and provide graduates with the opportunity to enter universities worldwide without additional exams. An example of this type of school are schools using the International Baccalaureate (IB) program. According to John Catt Educational Ltd. (2018), there are 46 IB World Schools in Russia; 44 of those schools offer their programs of study in English and two offer bilingual programs in Russian and English. 26 schools are authorized to offer the IB Diploma.

Schools of the human-oriented type have two goals. The first is associated with the self-determination of young people. Internationalization supports self-development in a changing world and global education for human relations. The second goal is the education of future citizens for life in a democratic society. This model suggests that the most important aim of internationalization is to give students a deeper awareness of international and intercultural issues related to freedom, tolerance, democracy and justice, and to provide them with tools to work actively and critically towards social transformation. An example of the human-oriented type are schools that belong to the network of UNESCO-associated schools. The UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network (ASPnet) was initiated by UNESCO in 1953. In the Soviet Union the network was established in 1957. At present, there are 189 ASPnet-associated schools in different regions of Russia (UNESCO Associated Schools Project Network, 2018). This project encourages schools worldwide to educate students on issues related to UNESCO’s values: promoting peace, international understanding and development of human potential. UNESCO schools focus their international activities on directions such as protection of world heritage, human rights, information about UN activities, and cultivating ideas of peace, and non-violence. They pay attention not only to socially important issues but also to interpersonal relationships between students and teachers, and to self-development of schoolchildren – strengthening their motivation for international contacts, learning foreign languages and acquiring intercultural competency. The intercultural dimension is an important element of the organizational culture, classroom climate and school environment. Regular meetings with foreign guests and vivid intercultural events at UNESCO school are developed to influence the emotional sphere of schoolchildren and foster their self-development and motivation for global learning. Schools that implement multicultural and inter-ethnic education using internationalization activities can also be classified under this type.

The language-oriented type is widely spread in the Russian school system. There are bilingual schools and schools with the advanced study of languages. The roots of this type can be traced back to the schools with in-depth study of foreign languages. Many foreign language teachers perceive a disparity between the conversation language and academic language. That is why the language-oriented model is implemented in Russian schools in two variants: “language for communication” (most spread variant) and “language for special knowledge” (mainly spread in bilingual schools and the schools offering some subjects in foreign languages). Schools of the language-oriented type maintain close contacts to their partner schools abroad and to the cultural and educational institutions of foreign countries that are located in Russia. Sometimes they also strive for language certificates issued by such institutions. An example is the Moscow school named after Charles de Gaulle with an advanced curriculum in the French language. The pupils of this school have different options: they can learn two foreign languages (English and French) according to the Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) variant or they can choose an advanced study of French and attend a number of subjects in French according to the Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) variant. The Charles de Gaulle School is the only school in Moscow and one of only three in Russia which was awarded the “Badge of Quality in the field of bilingual education in native language and French.” The award was officially presented by the French Ambassador to Russia. Annually, pupils of the school go to summer linguistic camps in France. Teachers improve their qualifications in the Center for Pedagogical Innovations established by the French Ministry of Education. The language-oriented type is widespread among private schools with an international profile in Russia.

These classification profiles provides a systematic view on schools with an international profile but they still have their limitations. Firstly, further research is needed to discover to what degree the classification would stand systematic empirical examination. Secondly, it is obvious that there is a certain overlapping of types. For example, the Russian International School in the Moscow region offers two academic programs in bilingual format (Russian and English). The school has a Russian and an international accreditation; the quality assessment is organized by the Russian Ministry of Education and by two world-famous educational organizations: Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate and Edexel Approved Center of Pearson (Russian International School, 2018). This school concentrates both on languages and on the international competiveness. Another example is schools of the language-oriented type where the focus on foreign languages helps pupils to break down cultural and linguistic barriers, encourages them to be open-minded and more tolerant towards other languages and other people, and thus also serves the goals that are associated with the human-oriented type of internationalized schools. However, if we consider the types of schools with international profiles not as containers but as orientation marks in a field of possibilities, this classification might help to identify schools that are flagships in the area of internationalization. The number of international schools with IB or of UNESCO-associated schools should be not overestimated. They are in the background of the total number of schools in Russia. In the school year 2016/2017 there were 42,600 primary, basic and secondary general educational institution serving 15.2 million pupils (Federalnaya sluzhba gosudarstvennoy statistiki, 2018). IB schools (located primarily in St. Petersburg and Moscow) and UNESCO-associated schools do not play a statistically significant role. Still, they may serve as models for other schools and can steer the development of their own internationalization profiles. Sometimes they may develop a more integrative type, which could include a better position in school competition, enrichment of educational content through international dimensions, improvement of language competency among teachers and students, and self-development of children and their education for democracy and justice.

Internationalization in mainstream schools: Findings from a small-scale study

In the last section of this article, the potential of the suggested approach to describe the diversity of international activities and school profiles in Russia will be illustrated by a small-scale study on internationalization of mainstream school in a medium-sized city. This focus has been little addressed by research so far because research on international education in schools concentrated on developments in megacities or regions with a multi-ethnic population.

The study explored the implementation of internationalization strategy in seven municipal public schools of Veliky Novgorod (Russia). The purpose of the study was to identify the most common forms of international activities and the motivation of pupils behind their participation in international activities, to single out the difficulties and obstacles faced by schools, and to estimate levels of internationalization. The choice of the above-mentioned seven schools from the total number of 32 schools of Veliky Novgorod was determined by the intensity of international activities in these schools. This was estimated by reports made by the school administration and teachers at various conferences and meetings with parents and the city community, and by media reports. We also used the assessments done by regional and municipal education authorities and the experience of the Novgorod State University in interactions with these schools.

The study involved seven school principals, 35 teachers and 70 pupils who were active participants in international activities. The study was exploratory in nature and utilized a qualitative approach. The adult study participants were offered the questionnaire consisting of six open questions which required not only the enumeration of international activities and cooperations, but also the description of personal experiences connected with international events and activities, as well the analysis of obstacles to internationalization and the possible solutions of the identified problems. The interviews with seven school principals were conducted to identify the schools’ strategies with regard to internationalization. The pupils were given a questionnaire containing some demographic data (name, age and gender), questions on their international experience, on attitudes and stereotypes regarding people of different nationalities. The questionnaire for pupils consisted of 20 questions, 10 of which presupposed the multiple choice; seven questions were “Yes/No”, with two of them presupposing a follow-up with more details in case of a positive answer. Three questions were open.

The study showed that all schools reported the exchange of teachers and students, educational mobility (100%), joint sports and cultural events (100%), international communication and information exchange with the help of new information technologies (100%) as forms of international cooperation. The schools found partners in various countries of the world: Germany, the USA, Poland, Finland, China, Sweden, etc. A distinctive feature of cooperation is the partnership with schools from twin cities in Germany, the USA, China, and Finland. Such cooperation is supported by regional and local authorities, citizens of the city, and parents who have experience of cooperation with these cities through various channels. Three of seven schools actively participate not only in international exchanges but also in projects and programs (ecological projects, international art exhibitions, museum festivals, etc.) with international partners and partners in the non-formal education sector. The invitation of international specialists (teachers, assistants, trainees) as well as participation in international conferences, round tables, master classes, etc. took the second place in the popularity rating of forms of international cooperation (four out of seven schools). Very interesting is the experience of a school that has been hosting an international conference “Model UN” for several years. In the School of Young Diplomats pupils present their vision of solving global problems of humanity. Traditionally more than 150 delegates work in four committees: Human Rights, Environment and Culture, Political Affairs, and Disarmament and Security. Team teaching (two of seven schools mentioned the experience) and participation in international comparative studies (one of seven mentioned the participation) seem to play only a small role among international activities. The major obstacles for the development of international cooperation named by respondents were lack of funding (seven school principals, 30 teachers, 52 students); language barrier (two school principals, nine teachers, 22 students). Some respondents indicated the difficulty of finding foreign partners as an obstacle to the development of cooperation. Two school principals and 11 teachers mentioned the difficult international situation as an obstacle to the internationalization activities.

Based on the number and the systematic delivery of internationalization activities, only two schools may be considered to be on the way to the level of strategic development towards an international profile. Four schools can be placed at the level of sustainable international activities. One school is still at the first level of fragmentary internationalization. However, the development of this school shows a positive dynamic, and some signs of a second level are emerging; for example, the academic mobility of students and teachers. The findings from questionnaires and interviews are slightly ambiguous in terms of the types of internationalization that are visible in the profiles of participating schools. The schools seem to pay much attention to the learning of foreign languages and at the same time—it is and indispensable part of the general education—they demonstrate many elements that are characteristic for the human-oriented type. Even though all schools benefit from their internationalization activities on the local educational market, there were only indicators in one of the schools that it may develop towards the type of global competitiveness described earlier in this article. Further research is needed to identify the modes of school development in these schools, in particular regarding the history of school mergers, changes of legal status, etc. The research should also take into consideration the local situation of a medium-sized city and the current trends toward centralization and standardization. Probably, internationalization can be an important (but not the only) distinctive element of the profile of a good school in such constellations, in particular in areas with not enough internationally oriented parents.

Conclusions

Whereas Russian universities have mostly adopted the paradigm of internationalization in higher education that is widespread in Europe and worldwide, this article demonstrates that the situation regarding the internationalization of schools is more complex and ambiguous. The analysis of the past and present of internationalization of schools in Russia leads to a few conclusions and perspectives for further research.

The notion of “international” is different in different pedagogical approaches in Russian pedagogy and is closely linked with educational policies from a particular historical period. In international schools and schools with an in-depth study of foreign languages, the notion of international is associated with “abroad.” UNESCO-associated schools follow the idea of global education. There are concepts of international education that align “international” with “inter-ethnic” and focus on peace, tolerance and friendship between peoples, and hardly even mention such aspects as international mobility and individual competitiveness in a globalized world. Another important aspect about the internationalization of schools in Russia is the close link between international and patriotic education. The dialectic unity of internationalism and patriotism can be traced back to the Soviet ideology and pedagogy. In particular, in republics that represent non-Russian ethnic groups the concept of international education is linked or mixed up with multicultural education (polikul’turnoe vospitanie/obrazovanie). The article identified three main types of schools with international profiles based on goals of internationalization: the global competitiveness type, the human-oriented type, and the language-oriented type.

The neoliberal reforms of the 1990s resulted in the differentiation of schools in the school system, the establishing of non-state schools and the creation of conditions for internationalization of secondary schools. Secondary schools in Russia have become quite autonomous; this new status made the school principals more independent and flexible in developing different forms and strategies of school governance. The strategy of internationalization has become a distinctive factor for schools. With this strategy, they serve the interests of parents who understand the importance of international education and global learning and want their children to be competitive in the labor market in the future. The emerging empirical data from a small-scale study presented in this article demonstrated the ongoing differentiation: schools with international activities differ from each other, ranging from fragmentary internationalization to sustainable international activities or even to strategic development towards an international profile.

The Russian case demonstrates that policies and practices of internationalization of schools are framed by regional and local conditions to a considerable degree. Despite the trend towards more centralization in school education (Unified State Exam, elimination of the regional component in the standard curricula, the growing influence of the federal programs for innovations in education), policy research should not overlook the regional dimension of internationalization in schools. In megacities like Moscow and St. Petersburg, large numbers of international companies and international employees and globally oriented upper- and upper-middle-class parents generate the demand for international schools (in particular with the IB Diploma). In those cities large groups of ethnic minorities maintain schools with a national-ethnic profile, usually focusing on language education and promoting the culture of the country or the region where this culture and language constitute the core of the nation state. In administrative centers of regions, schools with visible internationalization activities usually concentrate on the in-depth study of foreign languages and use international activities and cooperations to foster language competences and provide international language certificates. Schools in rural areas seem to be almost fully neglected in the discourse about internationalization of schools even though they make up more than half of all schools in Russia.

For the analysis of policies of internationalization, the case of Russia may also contribute to the understanding of the path dependency regarding the internationalization in national systems of education since the Soviet past still has an impact on the current policy. According to Minina (2017), two main driving forces can be identified in the post-Soviet education reform process: home-grown pedagogical initiatives and neoliberal globalization (Minina, 2017: 103). Minina takes the argument by Silova (2010: 9) that Westernization frameworks cannot explain the ambiguity of post-socialist change and argues that transition-oriented literature overlooked important dimensions of educational change. The analysis of the diversity of approaches to internationalization presented in this article can be regarded as a step towards a critical evaluation of an implicit technological bias, “formulation-implementation” dichotomy, and insufficient attention to the genesis of the reforms (Minina, 2017: 108). In particular, futher research into of what happens to many innovative schools with a distinctive international profile that were established in the 1990s now and how the Putin era with its focus on patriotic education and the search for a new position of Russia in a globalized world might cast light on the issue of irreversibility of internationalization in school education.