Reflections on the state language: Crimea, past, present, future
Digression to the article
One day, books will be written about the interconnection and development of
the Old Slavonic language or Old Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian, and
Russian. Today, history tells us that until 1725, the inhabitants of the Moscow
Kingdom were logically called "Muscovites." The Moscow principality
emerged only in the 13th century. The Russian state was already known in the
9th century. Whether it existed even earlier is a question for historians.
What was the native language in the Rus' state? It is logical that it was
the Russian language. More precisely, the Old Russian or Proto-Russian
language. Any language develops, improves, and changes over time under the influence
of various historical events. It is believed that under the influence of these
historical events, the Prorussian language developed as the native language of
the people: in the state of Ukraine, it became the Ukrainian language; in the
state of White Russia (Belarus), it became the Belarusian language; in the
Moscow principality, the name Russian language was preserved. And after Tsar
Peter the Great of Moscow changed the name of the state to the more European
"Russia" or "Russian Empire" in the 18th
century, the Ruthenian language eventually became known as the Russian
language. Because it was the official language (though for a long time only
officially). And in the formation, improvement, and development of the Russian
language, the teachers of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy played a great, even huge
role.
In the Russian-Ukrainian war, the aggressor declared a "campaign to
defend the Russian language" as one of the
"fig leaves" to justify its crimes. That is, the language that
was the state language in the modern Russian Empire.
And for the citizens of Ukraine in Crimea and some other territories of
Ukraine, Russian became their native language in certain historical periods. By
the way, when the occupiers occupied the Crimean peninsula, they discovered that
the Crimean residents knew the Russian language, which is similar to Russian,
much better than the occupying aliens. And the Russian language in Crimea
differs from the standard dialects of the Russian mainland.
In the author's opinion, in the process of formulating a reintegration
policy, it is necessary to avoid politicizing the native language for some
Ukrainian citizens. That is, speaking your native language does not mean being
a supporter of the occupiers or a collaborator. The current war has illustrated
this very clearly.
At the same time, the preservation of this linguistic situation carries
risks for Ukraine's national security. For the reason that the
"bloodthirsty neighbor" will remain a
"bloodthirsty neighbor" at our borders. Reflecting on these issues,
the author decided to abandon the equalizing political component of the Russian
language, dividing it into Russian and Russian. That is, the term "Russian
language" is used for the indicator "native language of Ukrainian
citizens in certain Ukrainian territories".
And the strategic task in this problem is to minimize the existing risks and ensure that the Ukrainian language has the status of a language of communication, an everyday language throughout Ukraine within the 1991 borders.
Introduction to the conversation
Nine years ago, on December 9, 2014, my colleagues from the Maidan of
Foreign Affairs and I presented one of the results of our work, entitled
"Strategy for the Return of Crimea." What did we talk about? The
situation in the occupied territory as a background for making decisions on the
formation of objective strategic goals, intermediate goals, and Crimean policy
in general. Risks, threats, ways to minimize them, and more. Including language
as a tool for reintegration.
Unfortunately, the authorities have chosen a different path in shaping
Crimean policy. A few years ago, around 2018, the author called this path
"the policy of creating false realities." As one of the results of
this policy, the vast majority of public discussions about Crimea are in the
context of "what is happening in the occupied Crimea". Some media
outlets specialize in this, which is necessary and important.
But it is important and necessary first and foremost as one of the
foundations for forming answers to a huge number of other questions: "What
will happen after de-occupation? What will reintegration look like?" The
rhetoric of "trust us and everything will be fine" does not work. And
this is not enough in any case.
Many people are familiar with the expression: "A good politician,
after winning an election, begins to think about the next election, and a
worthy statesman about future generations." Why did the author mention
this expression? In May 1944, the military operation to de-occupy the Crimean
peninsula was completed. 70 years later, in February 2014, the military
operation to occupy the territory of Ukrainian Crimea by the Russian aggressor
began. A seventy-year gap, during which Crimea was administratively part of the
RSFSR, since 1954 part of the Ukrainian SSR, and since 1991 part of the
independent state of Ukraine. But in these 70 years, in at least three
positions or three aspects of the peninsula's life, the reintegration of its
territory after the de-occupation in 1944 has not been completed:
1. We are talking about the demilitarization of the territory (the problem
of the Mekkensiy Mountains).
2. Reintegration of the regional economic model (the consequences of the
use of scorched earth tactics and other consequences of the Second World War have
not been eliminated).
3. Political and administrative status of the territory (the autonomous
status of the territory on a national basis has not been restored).
That is, if we talk about this honestly and frankly, thinking about future
generations, taking into account the unfinished reintegration for almost three
generations, taking into account all the changes that have taken place in
Crimea during this period, then our task is to build a reintegration policy
that takes into account all the mistakes of the past.
One of the mistakes that has a systemic impact is the issue of language. The language of communication, the language of everyday use or the language of predominant use on the territory of the Crimean peninsula. At first glance, there is nothing complicated - there is a state language, period. But Crimea has never been monolingual in its history. Different tribes, peoples, different languages. At the same time, in different periods of its history, Crimea had languages of communication: ancient Greek, Latin, Russian and others. This means that the population of Crimea in some part of it has always spoken at least two languages: the native language (the language of its people) and the language of communication (for finding a dialogue and understanding with others).
Languages of communication in Crimea before 1954
The available data on the ethnic composition of the Crimean peninsula's
population in different historical periods also shows the predominant languages
of the respective historical periods: Ancient Greek, Latin, variants of Turkic
languages, etc. Since the 15th century, Crimean Tatar and Turkish have been the
predominant languages in Crimea. In the 19th century, especially in the second
half, Crimean Tatar and Russian became predominant. This bilingualism persisted
until 1944. The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, created in 1921
as part of the RSFSR, had two official languages (Crimean Tatar and Russian).
After the deportation of the Crimean Tatar people in 1944, only one language remained on the territory of the Crimean peninsula, Russian. This situation persists to this day. Even the re-subordination of the Crimean region to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954 did not significantly affect the change in the language of communication in Crimea.
The Ukrainianization of which (did not) happen: Crimea in the period from 1954 to 1991
The Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR as amended in 1978 mentioned the
functioning of the Ukrainian language in the republic only in Article 103 in
the context of the publication of laws, resolutions and other acts of the
Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR, which were published in Ukrainian and
Russian in accordance with the norms of the Constitution of the Ukrainian SSR.
Other articles of the Constitution used the form "native language".
Existing archives show that at the Crimean regional party conference on
March 10, 1954, when asked by its delegate Sushchenko about the procedure for
introducing the Ukrainian language on the peninsula, in particular in Soviet
institutions, schools, the press, radio, etc., the then second secretary of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine Mykola Pidhirny said the
following: "This issue, as far as I know, was of concern to the workers of
the Crimean region long before the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme
Soviet of the USSR on the transfer of the Crimean region to the Ukrainian SSR
was issued. Apparently, rumors were leaking out little by little, and there was
a certain, as they say, public opinion around this issue. The question of how Ukrainianization would
take place, when Ukrainian workers from other regions would arrive, and a
number of other issues worried the population of the Crimean region.
As for schools, even in the western regions of Ukraine, we have Russian
schools, just like throughout Ukraine, but these Russian schools teach
Ukrainian as a subject. I'm not going to say for sure, but I think that this is
probably the case here. I don't see anything wrong with that, if Ukrainian is
taught in Russian schools. They teach other languages. They say that children
will be overloaded, but it is clear that they will be no more overloaded than the
children of workers in all regions of the Ukrainian SSR.
Record keeping is and remains in Russian. There is no need to translate
office work into Ukrainian. However, how can you think of translating office
work in institutions into Ukrainian when people do not know Ukrainian? After
all, in order to translate all office work into Ukrainian, you need to know the
language, you need to have people who speak the language, and this cannot be
solved in 1-2-10 years, it is a long process until a person learns the language
to the level to conduct office work in an institution. As for radio, movies,
correspondence, everything will be as it was. And we have never set ourselves
the task, as soon as Crimea joins Ukraine, that everything will go upside down
and we will have to translate everything into Ukrainian."
Archival documents indicate that the issue of introducing the Ukrainian language on the peninsula was raised by the Crimean authorities six months later. On September 13, 1954, a letter to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, approved by a resolution of the regional committee bureau, stated, in particular:
"In connection with the transfer of the Crimean region to the Ukrainian SSR, the Crimean regional committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine considers it necessary to introduce the study of the Ukrainian language and literature in the schools of the Crimean region in the 1955-1956 academic year."
The year-long delay in the introduction of the Ukrainian language was due
to the fact that the Crimean region did not have the required number of
teachers who knew Ukrainian. Thus, out of 2,193 primary school teachers, only
94 were proficient in Ukrainian. But even they had no experience in teaching
this subject. In total, it was necessary to train 1,500 teachers for grades II
through IV in short-term courses, and provide textbooks to 320 seven-year and
140 secondary schools. In addition, one teacher of the Ukrainian language had
to be sent to each seven-year school, and two to each secondary school. A total
of 600 teachers. By the way, they also had to teach classes in schools for
working and rural youth.
However, life was a little different. In Crimea, they did not wait for the
introduction of the Ukrainian language at the beginning of the new school year.
Already on November 25, 1954, this subject was taught in five primary classes
of schools #21 and #24 and in primary school #12 in Simferopol. As the Ministry
of Education of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine
reported, "...the first day of teaching the Ukrainian language in schools
was satisfactory. Children with great interest quickly and correctly learned
the pronunciation of Ukrainian words and sentences".
The first time the Ukrainian language was spoken at the regional level in
Crimea was on March 12, 1957, in a speech by the secretary of the Dzhankoy
district party committee, Kuts. After him, the secretary of the party's
regional committee Chirva and the secretaries of the district committees spoke
Ukrainian: Kulyk of Saki and Lysyi of Kirovsk.
The use of the Ukrainian language in schools was expanding every year.
While in the first year Ukrainian was taught in 38 classes in 24 schools by 619
students, two years later 115 classes in 70 schools with 2,383 children were
teaching Ukrainian according to the curriculum of the Ministry of Education.
However, the increase in classes with Ukrainian as the language of instruction
did not solve all the problems. The absence of schools with a full cycle of
education in Ukrainian in Crimea complicated the situation of displaced
children, especially students in grades 5-10, who had already mastered the
formulation of theorems, laws in mathematics, physics, chemistry and other
subjects in their native Ukrainian language, and many of them could not switch
to Russian, or remained in the same class for a second year, or left school, as
the head of the regional department of public education A. Kosyak wrote in
August 1957.
He also cited the following data:
"...in many villages with a concentration of displaced Ukrainians, there is a sufficient number of students to open parallel classes with Ukrainian as the language of instruction. For example, in Verkhnesadovskoye seven-year school in Bakhchisaray district, 13 Ukrainians are currently enrolled in the 1st grade, and on September 1, 17 more Ukrainians will enter the 1st grade. In Skalist elementary school in the same district, out of 72 students, there are 30 children of IDPs who are Ukrainians, including 12 in the 1st grade and 10 in the 2nd grade. In Krenkivska elementary school in Kuibyshev district, out of 17 students, there are 14 Ukrainians. In some schools in Simferopol and other districts of the region, the situation is the same."
Subsequently, it was decided to organize a secondary boarding school with
Ukrainian as the language of instruction for 280 students in grades 5-10 in
Simferopol on September 1, 1957.
In the report of the same A. Kosiak at the plenary session of the Crimean
regional committee of the party on October 8, 1957, it sounded like this:
"Since Crimea's accession to the Ukrainian SSR, schools in the region have been gradually transitioning to the curriculum of the Ministry of Education of the Ukrainian SSR. This academic year, Ukrainian is taught as a subject from the 2nd grade everywhere, in 117 schools it was introduced in grades 5-7 to accumulate experience, and in Simferopol, by the decision of the regional party committee and the regional executive committee, the first school with Ukrainian as the language of instruction was organized, which has 214 students. The school and its dormitory are provided with qualified teaching staff. At the initiative of the Simferopol City Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, a good school building was allocated for it, but the school has faced great difficulties. The most regrettable thing is that many students have to be refused admission due to the lack of places in the dormitory. At the same time, the premises allocated for the dormitory of this school are occupied by unauthorized persons, and the city executive committee does not take measures to evict them."
In the 1958-1959 school year, 19766 pupils were already studying Ukrainian
in all second, third and fifth grades in Crimea. In this positive way, the
process of introducing the Ukrainian language in Crimea was actually developing
until the adoption of a new union law on education, which provided for the
right of parents to choose the language of instruction for their children. From
then on, Ukrainian could be studied or not studied voluntarily, which led to
the tragic consequences of its use on the peninsula.
The impetus for curtailing the study of the Ukrainian language was a letter
from several parents who appealed to the CPSU Central Committee and the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine with a complaint about the alleged
coercion of their children to study in Ukrainian. This was enough for the
bureau of the party's regional committee to immediately convene to consider the
issue "On the facts of violation of the principle of voluntariness in the
study of the Ukrainian language in secondary school No. 15 in Simferopol.
Simferopol". At this meeting, many reprimands were handed out for
violating the right and voluntary choice of language of instruction. From that
moment on, the Ukrainian language began to curtail its presence on the Crimean
peninsula in education, the media, and publishing.
By the way, "the public of the Crimean region was in favor of learning
the Ukrainian language. Only a small part of parents, for various reasons,
expressed a desire for their children not to learn Ukrainian". For
example, in 1954, when Ukrainian was not taught, the performance of students in
Crimean schools in the Russian language was 91.1%, and in 1961, when Ukrainian
was taught, it was 91.6%. The parallel study of Ukrainian and Russian grammar
increased students' literacy in both subjects.
Outside of school, the Ukrainian language was officially used in Crimea
only during the arrival of foreign Ukrainians. And the program of the group
from the "Society of United Ukrainians of Canada" in Crimea even
provided for the posting of a "welcome slogan in Ukrainian" on the
premises of the Simferopol railway station. Mykola Pidhirnyi, the then first
secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, tried to
speak in Ukrainian at a government reception in Yalta on August 21, 1960.
But since he confused Ukrainian words with Russian ones, Khrushchev cut him
off:
"Nikolai Viktorovich, you've forgotten the Ukrainian language, let's blow in Russian, so everyone will understand."
In 1961, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine and the
Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR adopted a resolution "On
measures to ensure the reception of Soviet and foreign tourists in the city of
Sevastopol." Thus, the use of the Ukrainian language was returned to
Crimea, although in its original form: by its resolution, the bureau of the
Crimean regional committee ordered "to install signs in Russian,
Ukrainian, and Latin on the Yalta-Sevastopol highway."
Already in the 1966-1967 school year, there were only three boarding
schools with Ukrainian language instruction in the entire Crimea: Dzhankoy
8-year school for 210 pupils; Simferopol secondary school for 308 pupils; and
Gvardeyskaya 8-year school for 175 pupils.
A year later, in the 1967-1968 school year, the Ukrainian school in
Dzhankoy was liquidated, and in the 1970-1971 school year, there was only one
school with Ukrainian language instruction in Simferopol, with 412 students. In
the next school year, 1971-1972, the first grade was no longer enrolled, and
there were no plans for grades 9 and 10. The Ukrainian school in Crimea ceased
to exist, but the Ukrainian language was taught as a subject until the collapse
of the USSR.
Thus, with very few exceptions, virtually the entire established Crimean
population-the generation of the 50s, 60s, and later-was fluent in Ukrainian,
if not fluent, at least understanding it at the time of the collapse of the
Soviet Union.
Ukrainian language in Crimea during the period of independence (1991-2014)
On August 24, 1991, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR adopted the Act
of Independence of Ukraine by an overwhelming majority. But this event did not
affect the language environment of Crimea in any way. The educational process
continued to be governed by the rule that the parents of students chose to
study or not to study the Ukrainian language at their discretion. Teaching in
schools, universities and other educational institutions continued to be
conducted in Russian.
In 1996, the Constitution of Ukraine was approved, where Article 10 stated
that the state language was Ukrainian. But the educational space of Crimea
remained Russian-speaking. The transfer of the city of Sevastopol to a separate
independent administrative-territorial status in order to circumvent the
provisions of the Constitution and preserve the Russian Black Sea Fleet naval
base on the territory of the administrative-territorial unit further
contributed to the negative situation with the use of the state language in
Crimea.
For example, every new academic year in higher education institutions in
Crimea and Sevastopol, students' parents or adult students themselves wrote
applications for classes in Russian. Thus, the Ukrainian language was being
pushed out of the educational space of the Crimean peninsula. Joint
Ukrainian-Russian educational institutions appeared, and branches of Russian
universities were opened in Sevastopol.
However, the gradual development of the independent Ukrainian state still
brought its own, albeit small, results. Crimean residents increasingly felt the
need to learn the state language. Under public pressure, schools with Ukrainian
language instruction began to open. This was most clearly illustrated by a
public opinion poll presented in 2011 in Crimea. If the author is not mistaken,
these public opinion polls were conducted by the Russian Levada Center. Among
other things, they measured the moods of young parents (aged 25 to 45) in terms
of their perception of language preferences.
The situation with the use of languages in the educational space of the
Autonomous Republic of Crimea during these public opinion surveys was as
follows.
The structure of language
use in the educational process in the 2010/2011 academic year (table):
|
Level of the educational institution |
Language of instruction |
|||
|
Ukrainian |
Russian |
Crimean Tatar |
English |
|
|
Preschool educational institutions |
1715 |
49546 |
539 |
- |
|
General education institutions |
13609 |
149793 |
5399 |
217 |
|
UNIVERSITY. |
8515 |
47008 |
- |
- |
|
Total |
23839 |
246347 |
5938 |
217 |
At the same time, positive responses were received to the questions about
their attitude to the use and learning of the Ukrainian language and the need
for their children to master it. Between 68 and 87% of respondents said that
they consider it necessary for their children to be fluent in Ukrainian
(including because it will help their children in their career development)
and, accordingly, associate their children's future with Ukraine. These results
of the public opinion poll in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of
Sevastopol came as an unpleasant surprise to the Kremlin and another argument
illustrating the growing distance of the Crimean peninsula and Ukraine as a
whole from Russia.
Crimean
Present: Ukrainian Language as an Object of Deportation
During the occupation of the Crimean peninsula, which has been going on for 11 years, the following picture could be observed in coastal settlements. Local residents who trust each other gather in a small group of 4-5 people, swim away from the shore and speak Ukrainian there. They stop talking when someone unfamiliar, someone else swims up. It's dangerous, you can get hurt for speaking Ukrainian.
Thus, in the investigative article "Natalia Goncharova and Valentyna
Lavryk - Leaders of the Occupation Regime's Criminal Policy in Education in the
occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea", , published by on the information resource "Voice of Crimea", information was
published on the algorithms for eliminating education in the Ukrainian language
and its study on the occupied peninsula. In particular, the material
emphasizes:
"Despite the official assurances of the Crimean 'authorities' about the 'state status' of the Ukrainian language in the region, its study disappeared from the school curriculum, but some Crimean parents expressed their desire to send their children to Ukrainian classes so that they could continue their studies at any Ukrainian university on the mainland of Ukraine. The parents' indignation was caused by the fact that, according to the Russian regulations established in Crimea, high school education was to be conducted exclusively in Russian. Given these facts, local Ukrainians concluded that the occupation "authorities" of Crimea are deliberately destroying Ukrainian-language education in order to assimilate the population so that Ukrainians do not feel their identity but rather feel part of the "Russian world."
The pre-war, or rather the transition from peaceful to occupation, academic
year 2013-2014 Crimean regional educational space was characterized by the
following indicators:
- education in the state language covered 7.3% of Ukrainian students
(13,322 people), there were 7 Ukrainian-language schools in cities, but no
Ukrainian-language schools in rural areas. Moreover, the Ukrainian language was
compulsory for study in all schools in the ARC and Sevastopol, which resulted
in 100% proficiency in the state language among children and youth;
- 15 schools with the Crimean Tatar language of instruction (182 classes,
3092 students);
- 1 school with the Crimean Tatar language of instruction and classes with
Ukrainian as the language of instruction (40 classes, 809 students);
- 20 schools with two languages of instruction: Crimean Tatar and Russian
(68 classes, 679 students);
- 27 schools with three languages of instruction: Ukrainian, Crimean Tatar
and Russian (109 classes, 1281 students);
- In total, 5,551 students (3.1% of the total) studied in the Crimean Tatar
language;
- 12,707 students studied the Crimean Tatar language as a subject, 28
studied it in depth, and 6,906 studied it as an optional subject.
After 9 years of occupation, the situation has
changed dramatically. Thus, in the 2022/2023 academic year, 545 general
education schools with 230,300 students were operating on the part of the
occupied Crimean peninsula, which is called the "Republic of Crimea"
by the occupiers. Education was provided in three "state" languages
of the "Republic of Crimea": Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar.
The occupation educational space had the following indicators:
- There were 528 general education schools with Russian as the language of
instruction;
- there were 16 general education schools with the Crimean Tatar language
of instruction (261 classes, 5462 students). In addition, 119 classes with the
Crimean Tatar language of instruction (1905 students) were opened on the basis
of 21 Russian-teaching secondary schools;
- one general education school with Ukrainian as the language of
instruction continued to operate (9 classes, 182 students). In addition, a
class was opened at the Simferopol Academic Gymnasium in Simferopol. Simferopol
opened a class with Ukrainian as the language of instruction (15 students).
This data illustrates that the Ukrainian language has become an object of persecution after the occupation of the peninsula. And as a generalized result, the Ukrainian language was actually deported from the occupied Crimean peninsula.
Quo vadis, Ukrainian language in Ukrainian Crimea?
In 2023, a team of experts gathered to prepare and publish a thorough
analysis of the humanitarian situation on the occupied peninsula. They also
tried to answer the question: "How will it be?" or rather, "How
do we recommend it to be" in four areas of the humanitarian sphere. In
particular, the issues of education and the Ukrainian language were discussed.
The experts emphasized the need to recognize that the language issue will
occupy a special place in the future reintegration of the Crimean peninsula.
Unfortunately, not much attention is paid to the process of linguistic
integration of people from occupied Crimea. In the context of the Russian Federation's strict
language policy and the long-term occupation, language ties can be lost. Thus,
in many appeals from persons from occupied Crimea, there were questions
about the existence of courses to learn or improve their knowledge of the
Ukrainian language.
In 2021, the Ministry of Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied
Territories launched a pilot project - Conducting free preparatory courses with
scholarships for applicants from occupied Crimea at HEIs, but the Ministry's website does
not contain information on the success or overall implementation of such a
project after 2021.
The website of the Commissioner for the Protection of the State Language
has an interactive information map that allows you to view the available
courses for learning Ukrainian offline, but not all regional centers have
information. The website also contains online resources. The Ministry of
Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine has created a National Platform for
Learning Ukrainian, which can be used by persons from occupied Crimea.
After analyzing the educational and professional programs (EPP) of various
specializations of several Ukrainian higher education institutions, we can
conclude that while the invariant component of these programs may contain a
Ukrainian studies component (for example, Ukrainian for professional purposes),
the variable component usually does not contain any disciplines with a
Ukrainian studies component, and people who lived in the occupied Crimea need it for linguistic reintegration and to fill in
the gaps in knowledge that were formed during the occupation.
Summarizing the above, there is a problem of the lack of a unified state
policy on reintegration courses for occupied Crimea. It is advisable to create a unified program that would facilitate the
learning and improvement of the Ukrainian language by persons from occupied Crimea, as well as address other educational problems that arise during the
prolonged occupation.
Sooner or later, Crimea will be de-occupied. The question of the language
of instruction in the regional educational space of Crimea will arise. Yes, teaching
should definitely be in Ukrainian. For children who have been indoctrinated,
and this has been reflected in their consciousness and subconscious, that
Ukrainian is bad and hostile. And this very important factor should be taken
into account. Because as a result, we can get "the risk of a drop in the
level of assimilation of material and educational information." Or
"the risk of continued access to Russian educational sources via the
Internet, which will cement the militarized consciousness of children."
Or, more precisely, both.
How to combine the existing requirements and minimize the risk? An employee
of the Crimean education system must be prepared to explain the material and
educational information in the Crimean Tatar and Russian languages clearly and
distinctly, and in no case offer additional paid courses instead of
explanations.
Without this understanding, it is at least naive to expect a positive
outcome of reintegration. At one of the roundtables discussing the
reintegration of the educational space, our esteemed colleagues gave an example
of the work of Ukrainian gymnasiums in pre-war Crimea. The example was in the
context of "we started teaching in Ukrainian, and the children caught up
and overcame personal difficulties. Everything went well". Yes, it really
did. Does this mean that there is no need to be afraid of the implementation of
the law on education in the process of educational reintegration and overcoming
the militarized consciousness of Crimean children and youth?
An example from the pre-war reality, i.e. from the situation when Crimea is
Ukraine in fact. When there is no fact that the occupiers have been
militarizing the consciousness of society, and especially children and youth,
24 hours a day for 11 years or more (we do not know how long the occupation
will last), forming an image of Ukraine as an enemy. And these are completely
different conditions for the perception of the language of instruction. These
considerations suggest that the language issue should be taken into account in
the category of risks and threats when deciding on a reintegration policy
model.
There is a risk of language rejection, and this is one of the easiest risks
to overcome with the right approach. For example, the attitude - why learn
Ukrainian? For a career and a social elevator through the territory of Ukraine?
Yes. It is a necessity. For life in Crimea - no. And we need to change this.
The language issue may become an additional factor in the formation of the
threat of "lost generation thinking," and this is already very
serious. This is already a threat of hostility with all the negative
consequences.
The provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Education" require
teaching in the Ukrainian language in the educational process. How will the
reintegration of the Crimean educational space combine the following: the
mandatory implementation of the law; the Russian language of students; and the
need to master the educational material?
The reality of life suggests that this problem is being solved gradually
through the gentle replacement of the Russian language of everyday
communication with Ukrainian. The political and national peculiarities of the
Crimean peninsula require, in turn, the introduction of another language of
everyday communication - the Crimean Tatar language. But to solve such a
difficult task, appropriate personnel are needed. Personnel who will be able to
communicate with students in Ukrainian, Crimean Tatar and Russian in the
educational process. Ideally, they should also speak English.
When in December 2015 the President of Ukraine signed a decision to
evacuate the Vernadsky Tauride National University from the occupied Crimea,
there was hope that the evacuated university would become the basis for
training a personnel reserve with the necessary set of competencies. It did not
work out that way. The university management considered its
"Crimeanness" only as a permanent indulgence and a PR component.
There is an urgent need to start training personnel for the Crimean regional education system who are fluent in Ukrainian, Crimean Tatar, English and Russian for all levels of the educational process (pre-school education, secondary education, higher education). Such training should be entrusted to higher education institutions with relevant competencies in Crimean issues.
The most logical thing would be to create a base for such training at the
Crimean Republican Institute of Postgraduate Pedagogical Education after its
evacuation from the occupied territory of the Crimean peninsula and to provide
it with new staff who have not tarnished themselves by cooperation with the
occupiers.
There is a need to ensure the introduction and spread of Ukrainian and
Crimean Tatar as languages of everyday communication at all levels of the
regional educational model of the Crimean peninsula, starting with pre-school
educational institutions. The language of everyday communication or the
language of predominant use is learned from kindergarten.
We also need to train personnel to conduct courses on mastering the
Ukrainian language for the adult population of the Crimean peninsula.
There are many more needs and tasks. There are also more problems and risks. By the way, in the regional educational space of Crimea, there were just under 70,000 employees in total. Neither in a year nor in two years has such a large number of personnel reserve been trained - the state has no such tasks. And today, unfortunately, such training is not being conducted. One can endlessly state that "Crimea is Ukraine!", but without real action in this direction, the slogan will remain just a collection of Ukrainian letters.
Yuriy SMIELIANSKY, expert on the occupied
territories
1205 views
