Education in Turkmenistan
Education in Turkmenistan is nearly inseparable from politics. During his presidency, Niyazov heavily regulated scholastic content. Teachers of all subjects were , and still are, required to teach to very strict, government-sanctioned requirements. Niyazov often compared himself to a teacher, whose duty it was, "to educate the people" on the true history and spirit of Turkmenistan. Schools and universities are required to teach a course on "The Policy of Turkmenbashi" (Turkmenbashi is the official title of the president) (Kuru 2002, pg. 78). All schools require the reading of the Ruhmana, a loose history of Turkmenistan written by Niyazov. The book also includes moral and spiritual instruction from the president as well as autobiographical portions and serves as a guide to how to be a true Turkmen, and it seeks in inspire pride in both Niyazov and Turkmenistan (Kuru 2002, pg. 77). Looking at the curricula, it becomes clear that the Turkmen government's aim within education is not education itself, but indoctrination. This heavily shapes how the government approaches English teaching in Turkmenistan.
Teaching English in Turkmenistan - An American Teacher's Perspective
In the early 200s, the outlook on English teaching in Turkmenistan was fairly optimistic. One teacher recalled the eagerness of her students when she first visited Turkmenistan as an English teacher:
"I felt the Turkmen love for everything English. The dean of my institute put me on local Turkmen TV on two occasions to publicly promote English, as well as the role of groups like the US Peace Crops in Turkmenistan. Students applauded me even as I walked into class, and there was a high demand for private tutoring. I turned down countless wedding invitations, as well as evening meals at teachers' homes (often their change to practice "real" English)…I had no trouble assembling students. (Ahn 2016, pg. 72).
The teacher went on to explain how students would want to speak with her everywhere they saw her, in the market, between classes. Students would even take out the trash in her classroom to have the chance to practice English.
However, all this changed in the 2010s. Upon her second stint in Turkmenistan, the teacher noticed that the attitude toward her was decidedly different. She taught in a university and at first glance, was overjoyed to find the classrooms well technologically equipped. However, this excitement soon faded with the realization that she was prevented from truly teaching English. The textbooks were old and outdated. Students were kept from her English club by government related meetings and responsibilities. She was encouraged to create two lesson plans, one which the government approved of and which she could teach in case of a government inspection of her classroom and a true lesson plan, which better taught English. Additionally, while she was asked to give tests and provide grades, these grades were altered by other administrators based on students' behavior. For example, a student may have received an A on an assignment, but this grade would then change to a C for not following the dress code or for other perceived misconduct (Ahn 2016, pg. 74-75). After a variety of emotionally distressing experiences and difficulties in receiving the proper resources and support to teach English, the teacher returned to the United States.
Another English teacher in Turkmenistan, Valerie Sartor, wrote an article addressing the difficulty with teaching English in Turkmenistan. Corruption is rampant and students often bribe administrators to graduate, making the grading system moot. She also discussed the Turkmen government's efforts to keep the country un-ostensibly closed primarily through controlling language. "By lowering the frequency of Russian as a language of inter-ethnic communication, and by blocking the study of other foreign languages, especially English," she writes, "only a small, privileged elite class of people will be able to communicate with non-Turkmen speakers in and out of the country." (Sartor 2010a, pg. 31).
Sartor also criticized the lack of appropriate technology and funding. While computers are available, they often do not have internet access. Additionally, very little money is given by the government to purchase up-to-date textbooks, provide teacher training or even to pay the teachers themselves. Often teachers turn to other means, such as accepting bribes to improve a student's grade, to supplement their income. (Sartor 2010a, pg. 33).
Overall, the current outlook on English education in Turkmenistan is dismal.
"I felt the Turkmen love for everything English. The dean of my institute put me on local Turkmen TV on two occasions to publicly promote English, as well as the role of groups like the US Peace Crops in Turkmenistan. Students applauded me even as I walked into class, and there was a high demand for private tutoring. I turned down countless wedding invitations, as well as evening meals at teachers' homes (often their change to practice "real" English)…I had no trouble assembling students. (Ahn 2016, pg. 72).
The teacher went on to explain how students would want to speak with her everywhere they saw her, in the market, between classes. Students would even take out the trash in her classroom to have the chance to practice English.
However, all this changed in the 2010s. Upon her second stint in Turkmenistan, the teacher noticed that the attitude toward her was decidedly different. She taught in a university and at first glance, was overjoyed to find the classrooms well technologically equipped. However, this excitement soon faded with the realization that she was prevented from truly teaching English. The textbooks were old and outdated. Students were kept from her English club by government related meetings and responsibilities. She was encouraged to create two lesson plans, one which the government approved of and which she could teach in case of a government inspection of her classroom and a true lesson plan, which better taught English. Additionally, while she was asked to give tests and provide grades, these grades were altered by other administrators based on students' behavior. For example, a student may have received an A on an assignment, but this grade would then change to a C for not following the dress code or for other perceived misconduct (Ahn 2016, pg. 74-75). After a variety of emotionally distressing experiences and difficulties in receiving the proper resources and support to teach English, the teacher returned to the United States.
Another English teacher in Turkmenistan, Valerie Sartor, wrote an article addressing the difficulty with teaching English in Turkmenistan. Corruption is rampant and students often bribe administrators to graduate, making the grading system moot. She also discussed the Turkmen government's efforts to keep the country un-ostensibly closed primarily through controlling language. "By lowering the frequency of Russian as a language of inter-ethnic communication, and by blocking the study of other foreign languages, especially English," she writes, "only a small, privileged elite class of people will be able to communicate with non-Turkmen speakers in and out of the country." (Sartor 2010a, pg. 31).
Sartor also criticized the lack of appropriate technology and funding. While computers are available, they often do not have internet access. Additionally, very little money is given by the government to purchase up-to-date textbooks, provide teacher training or even to pay the teachers themselves. Often teachers turn to other means, such as accepting bribes to improve a student's grade, to supplement their income. (Sartor 2010a, pg. 33).
Overall, the current outlook on English education in Turkmenistan is dismal.
Teaching English in Turkmenistan - A Turkmen Scholar's Perspective
Of course, this is not exactly how the Turkmen teachers would frame the status of English education in Turkmenistan. One Turkmen scholar, Meretguly Gurbanov, who teachers in India turned his attention to English teaching his homeland. In his paper "English Language Teaching in Turkmenistan -- Still There is A Way To Go", Gurbanov begins by praising Turkmen culture and even citing from Niyazov's writings on the proud history of Turkmenistan. Gurbanov seems to take a fairly optimistic view toward the spread of English.
"English, unlike Russian," he writes, "has neither political power nor colonial history in Turkmenistan. Therefore, the rapid spread of English in the newly independent country is primarily determined by the positive attitude of the Turkmen people toward the language and the users of this language, and by the unique role English holds in the international arena. Moreover, Turkmens realize that the knowledge of English has become essential in the wake of modern discoveries in technology, computer sciences, and health care." (Gurbanov 2014, pg. 47).
Gurbanov then lists the needs which need to be met in order for English to spread. He mostly focuses on providing proper training for English teachers, most whose first language is not English, and good textbooks. He carefully avoids any discussion of government prevention of teaching English, and writes his paper only acknowledging the government's apparent desire to spread English.
An earlier paper by Gurbanov further reveals the Turkmen educator's attitude toward English education. In the second paper, Gurbanov seeks to address how Turkmens might balance both proper respect for their own culture while taking in the languages of others. Namely, is it possible to learn English without westernization. Again, he opens with a section on the Turkmen culture, praising it as "one of the oldest civilizations which has made a significant contribution to the development of the world culture." (Gurbanov 2013, pg. 76). He continues to praise the many elements of their culture, hospitality, loyalty, strong morals, and so on. He then moves onto the meat of the paper, which he heads with the title "Whose Culture should be taught in ELT classes?" Ultimately, he argues that one can teach culture without erasing the national identity if one only focuses on aspects of the foreign culture, which brings about moral strength in the students and focuses on virtues which are globally respected. "Cultural beliefs and values should be enriched through a good education system. English Language education can be an alternative programme, and so the tool can easily be a culturally friendly textbook." (Gurbanov 2013, pg. 79). Notice that Gurbanov is careful to leave the government desire for Turkmenization untouched. He does not address government corruption and grasp at control through nationalism. Instead, he seeks to promote the study of English by appealing to how it can improve the sense of Turkmen identity and argue it is not a threat to Turkmenization.
The Turkmen theorizing on English teaching is in favor of English teaching and acknowledges that substantial difficulties face the spread of English, similar to the assessment of the English teachers from the United States. However, it is much more cautious and silent regarding issues of government corruption.
"English, unlike Russian," he writes, "has neither political power nor colonial history in Turkmenistan. Therefore, the rapid spread of English in the newly independent country is primarily determined by the positive attitude of the Turkmen people toward the language and the users of this language, and by the unique role English holds in the international arena. Moreover, Turkmens realize that the knowledge of English has become essential in the wake of modern discoveries in technology, computer sciences, and health care." (Gurbanov 2014, pg. 47).
Gurbanov then lists the needs which need to be met in order for English to spread. He mostly focuses on providing proper training for English teachers, most whose first language is not English, and good textbooks. He carefully avoids any discussion of government prevention of teaching English, and writes his paper only acknowledging the government's apparent desire to spread English.
An earlier paper by Gurbanov further reveals the Turkmen educator's attitude toward English education. In the second paper, Gurbanov seeks to address how Turkmens might balance both proper respect for their own culture while taking in the languages of others. Namely, is it possible to learn English without westernization. Again, he opens with a section on the Turkmen culture, praising it as "one of the oldest civilizations which has made a significant contribution to the development of the world culture." (Gurbanov 2013, pg. 76). He continues to praise the many elements of their culture, hospitality, loyalty, strong morals, and so on. He then moves onto the meat of the paper, which he heads with the title "Whose Culture should be taught in ELT classes?" Ultimately, he argues that one can teach culture without erasing the national identity if one only focuses on aspects of the foreign culture, which brings about moral strength in the students and focuses on virtues which are globally respected. "Cultural beliefs and values should be enriched through a good education system. English Language education can be an alternative programme, and so the tool can easily be a culturally friendly textbook." (Gurbanov 2013, pg. 79). Notice that Gurbanov is careful to leave the government desire for Turkmenization untouched. He does not address government corruption and grasp at control through nationalism. Instead, he seeks to promote the study of English by appealing to how it can improve the sense of Turkmen identity and argue it is not a threat to Turkmenization.
The Turkmen theorizing on English teaching is in favor of English teaching and acknowledges that substantial difficulties face the spread of English, similar to the assessment of the English teachers from the United States. However, it is much more cautious and silent regarding issues of government corruption.