ethnic integration and school policies in latvia*
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 13 November 2014, At: 12:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Nationalities Papers: The Journal ofNationalism and EthnicityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cnap20
Ethnic integration and school policiesin LatviaRasma Karklins aa University of Illinois‐Chicago , USAPublished online: 19 Oct 2007.
To cite this article: Rasma Karklins (1998) Ethnic integration and school policies inLatvia , Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, 26:2, 283-302, DOI:10.1080/00905999808408564
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905999808408564
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Nationalities Papers, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1998
ETHNIC INTEGRATION AND SCHOOL POLICIESIN LATVIA*
Rasma Karklins
Introduction
Latvia's education system shows little movement toward ethnic integration in thesense of homogenization, yet there is integration in the sense of a widely acceptedstatus quo.1 Linguistically separated schools act as safeguards of cultural identity forLatvians and non-Latvians alike and may well be the linchpin guaranteeing ethnicpeace. As argued by pluralist thinkers, comprehensive ethnic mixing and homogeniz-ing of multiethnic populations can be problematic, whereas providing a frameworkfor the stable preservation of distinct identities can lead to better integration overall.The multi-lingual school system of Latvia that operates in the broader context ofsmooth economic integration illustrates the merits of such a mixed integrative policy.
Ethnic and civic integration of minorities is a core public policy issue inpost-communist states that affects domestic as well as regional stability. Here Iexamine assumptions underlying various strategies of integration, and how well theywork in practice. Looking at language policy, I ask whether assimilation, languagepluralism, or language separatism best support overall integration. I conclude that inLatvia, and probably in other parts of East Central Europe, language pluralism iscrucial for overall ethnic stability.
In the school system of Latvia, language separation is much more prevalent thanpreviously recognized. Next to Latvian language schools, the Latvian state financeshundreds of Russian schools, as well as some schools for Poles and other minorities.Claims by some Russian politicians that Russian-speakers in Latvia are underpressure to "Latvianize" are misleading. In fact, 94% of Russian pupils and 86% ofother non-Latvians attend Russian schools. The prevailing view among Latvians andnon-Latvians alike is that assimilation causes more problems than it solves, and it isunlikely to increase in the near future. Public opinion favors a pluralist policy,defined as a school policy that emphasizes both minority languages as well as thelanguage of the land—in this case, Latvian.
Survey data show that most people in Latvia support better and more extensiveteaching of Latvian and feel that current programs are unsatisfactory. Despite broadconsensus that it is needed, Latvian language learning has not reached the desiredlevels. As it is, about half of the graduates of Russian language schools know littleor no Latvian. Expansion of language teaching and other pluralist programs arehampered by resource problems. A new ten-year language acquisition program
0090-5992/98/020283-20 © 1998 Association for the Study of Nationalities
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
R. KARKLINS
sponsored by the U.N. Development Program, and by the Republic of Latvia as wellas several Western governments, is likely to make a significant difference in thisregard.
The findings of this research are surprising in that they differ from what oneassumes to be the case on the basis of the most public commentary. There are twohuge gaps between the rhetoric and practice of minority school policy in Latvia. Thefirst gap is between the rhetoric of radical Russian and Latvian politicians who paintthe picture of looming—or wished for—linguistic assimilation, when, in fact, nearlyall Russian pupils continue to attend Russian instruction schools. The other gap isbetween stated governmental policy and the de facto inertia of Soviet era practices.Officially, Latvian schools are stated to have been moving toward an extensivepluralist approach, with special minority schools for smaller minorities and bilingualschools for Russian pupils. In fact, movement toward this goal has been slow, withmost members of smaller minorities being Russified, and only half of Russian pupilsbeing integrated linguistically into the larger Latvian environment. Both of thesegaps are astounding in themselves and also in that they appear to result less fromcalculated political interest than from a lack of analysis of what is happening in thepractical realm. This too appears to be a legacy of the Soviet era when mythicalprograms were seen as more real than actual events.
What Does Integration Mean?
Integration is a much used yet vague concept; little is known about the policies thatdo or do not promote it. Nevertheless, democratic multiethnic states uphold inte-gration as the official goal of policy making and it is widely referred to in theliterature on ethnopolitics. This article intends to contribute to the theoretical debateon the meaning of integration by focusing on an empirical case study, namely theschool system of Latvia.
Of the many definitions of integration, two are most useful for this analysis. Forone, integration can be defined as a process of increasing homogenization of culture,political outlook, and patterns of interaction. Typically this definition refers to agradual merging of cultures, an increasing sameness of political attitudes andbehavior, and a decrease of legal and institutional barriers to interaction. The seconddefinition of integration is more modest. It refers to the absence of disintegration,e.g., the absence of violence, institutional breakdown, and uncompromising politicalpositions. It refers less to change in a certain direction than to a reasonable degreeof socio-political stability and societal consensus that it is important to keep thestatus quo because it serves ethnic peace.
Both definitions of integration help to make sense of the ethnopolitics exemplifiedin the school system of Latvia. The present analysis shows that there is littlemovement toward integration in the sense of homogenization, yet one can argue thatthere is integration in the sense of a stable status quo that is accepted by most among
284
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
ETHNIC INTEGRATION AND SCHOOL POLICIES IN LATVIA
the multi-ethnic populace. This acceptance appears to be due to several things. Mostimportantly, one needs to look at integration overall rather than in separate spheres.In the larger study of which this article is a part it is argued that in Latvia in themid-1990s non-Latvians are differentially integrated in various social spheres.Russians and others are well integrated in the economic sphere, that is, they interactfreely in business circles, workplaces, as well as in their daily life as consumers.Besides, they are relatively well integrated in personal, familial and leisure life. Incontrast, most Russians and other non-Latvians are poorly integrated in regard toculture, communication, and education, as well as political institutions and partici-pation. One needs to look at all these spheres together to assess the quality of societalintegration; basing conclusions on the analysis of just one sphere can be misleading.
Of the various spheres where integration can occur, the best integrated sphere,e.g., economic life, has been analyzed least. Analysts typically focus on formalpolitics. Some analysts have taken the poor integration in the cultural and politicalspheres as the basis for dire predictions about looming ethnic conflict, and have beenpuzzled why ethnic relations in Latvia are improving rather than deteriorating.2 Onepossible explanation proposed here is that smooth interaction in economic andpersonal transactions has defused political resentments and that the separate edu-cation systems are seen as positive safeguards of cultural identity. As noted byDonald Horowitz, one approach to ethnic accommodation is the mixing of differenttypes of integration by social sphere.3 A similar thesis is espoused by pluralists andconsociationalists. Starting out with the proposition that comprehensive integrationin the sense of mixing and homogenizing in all spheres is problematic in non-immigrant multiethnic societies, they argue that granting autonomy and stablepreservation of separate identities in some spheres can lead to better integrationoverall.4 This article argues that the preservation of distinct cultural identities througha pluralist school system in Latvia is an example of such a mixed integrative policythat can safeguard a reasonable level of ethnic stability.
In multilingual states such as Latvia, policy makers can choose between threepolicies of public language use, e.g., they can pursue assimilation, language plural-ism, or language separation. Assimilation means that people lose facility in thetraditional language of their ethnic group in favor of a dominant language; pluralismmeans that people retain their traditional language and add another language to it;and language separation means that a group living next to another group focuses onretaining its traditional language without learning the language of their neighbors. Ifapplied to the school system of contemporary Latvia, the implication of the assimi-Iationist model is that all public schooling is conducted in Latvian and that Latvianculture is emphasized and minority cultures are ignored. The pluralist balancesinstruction in and of Latvian with minority languages, and pays attention to bothcultures. A pluralist approach also may include the self-administration of schools andan individual profile in curriculum design, such as implemented in inter-war Latvia.5
Separatist strategies imply that separate schools for minorities exist in isolation from
285
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
R. KARKLINS
other ethnic communities both linguistically, culturally, and in terms of civicinteraction. Here, the focus is on linguistic integration, but, it should be noted, thatcivic integration is another goal pursued in national education systems. Both anassimilationist and pluralist policy imply a civic education program focusing on thehistory and constitutional basis of the independent Republic of Latvia. In contrast,language separation suggests a separate or nihilistic civic identification.
This article analyzes language policy in Latvia's public schools in the mid-1990sand what it means for broader socio-political integration. It will show that there islittle evidence of assimilation and that, to the degree that it occurs, more children arebeing assimilated into the Russian than Latvian culture. Rhetorically, official policy-making focuses on a pluralist approach, but it has been implemented to a limitedextent only. As of school year 1996-1997 language separation is much moreprevalent than previously recognized. After examining the structure of the schoolsystem as well as enrollments, this study examines the extent to which schoolsemploy assimilation and various types of pluralist and separatist policies. It con-cludes with a survey of public debates about paths towards ethnic and civicintegration.
1. Structure of the School System
In contemporary Latvia the separation of school children according to language ofinstruction dominates since there is an extensive parallel network of schools teachingin Latvian and schools teaching in Russian. As shown below, the latter typically havea strong Russian orientation and students learn Latvian relatively poorly; e.g., aboutone-half of the graduates of Russian schools in Latvia know practically no Latvian.This unusual educational situation is a legacy of the Soviet policy of maintaining amonolingual Russian school system all over its empire. It served the dual purposesof providing standard Russian language schools for the children of Soviet cadre sentto various regions of the USSR and of promoting the assimilation of a segment ofthe local non-Russian population. In Latvia, the schools of historical minorities wereliquidated shortly after 1945 and as a result most minority children attended Russianschools. Some Latvian children also attended Russian schools, although most wentto Latvian language schools.6 Since the re-establishment of independence, policymakers have tried to move toward an integrated pluralist school system, but changehas been slow. This is partly due to policy inertia, but also because changing thehierarchy of languages requires considerable time and funding, neither of whichLatvia has had.
Enrollment Data
Of pupils in Latvia, 38% attended Russian-language schools in 1996-1997, amongthem nearly all Russian and minority children as well as 7% of Latvian children. If
286
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
ETHNIC INTEGRATION AND SCHOOL POLICIES IN LATVIA
TABLE 1Students by Nationality and Language of Instruction
Study in Latvian Study in Russian
1995 1996 1995 1996N = 202,540 N = 210,385 N = 131,254 N = 127,785
NationalityLatvians 92.9% 93.0% 7.1% 7.0%Russians 4.6% 5.7% 95.3% 94.1%Others* 14.0% 16.1% 86.0% 83.9%
* Of these, some (1,664 students) attend minority schools with special classes in Polish, Hebrew orother languages.Source: Aggregate data of Ministry of Education of Latvia.
one takes attendance of certain schools as a measure of assimilation, one finds thateven in 1996-1997 more Latvians were being "assimilated" than Russians: 15,094Latvian students attended Russian schools and just 5,861 Russian children attendedLatvian language schools.7 As comparative analysis shows, socio-linguisticallyLatvia represents an unusual case where the language of the nominal majority hasbeen endangered rather than the language of a minority.8 One indicator of Russianlanguage dominance during the Soviet era was that most members of smallerminorities, especially Ukrainians and Belorussians, attended Russian languageschools. As evident in Table 1, this has continued in the 1990s. As also evident fromTable 1, nearly all Latvian and Russian children attend school in their respectivenative language, and there is little change since 1995.
In sum, practically all Russian and minority students continue to attend Russianinstruction schools and only a small percentage are enrolled in Latvian instructionschools. Interestingly, public perceptions differ, a typical statement being that "moreand more parents from Russian and mixed families choose to send their children toschools with Latvian as the language of instruction."9 This gap between publicperceptions and reality can be explained in several ways. Although statistically small,there is a gradual increase of individual non-Latvians attending Latvian languageschools and this apparently looms large in public consciousness. In addition, theoverall number of students in Latvian instruction schools has been increasing(compare Table 1) and many analysts have misinterpreted a basically demographicshift as an ethnopolitical shift.
The latter point deserves to be elaborated upon. Looking at the demographicsituation, one finds that in 1996-1997 of all schoolchildren 63.4% were Latvians,29% were Russians, and 7.6% were "others."10 Since 67.7% of first grade studentswere enrolled in Latvian schools,11 these numbers suggest a slight increase inattendance of Latvian language schools, yet this is mostly due to demographic
287
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
R. KARKLINS
TABLE 2Births by Nationality of Mother, 1985-1995
All births N =LatviansRussiansBelorussiansUkrainiansPolesLithuaniansJewsGypsiesOthers
1985
39,75151.2%32.3%
6%4%2.4%1.7%0.5%0.4%1.5%
1990
37,91856.5%28.8%
4.8%3.8%2.2%1.6%0.3%0.4%1.6%
1995
21,59563.7%24%
3.2%2.5%2.1%1.5%0.1%0.7%0.9%
Source: Demographic Yearbook of Latvia (Riga: Central StatisticalBureau of Latvia, 1996), p. 50.
change. In recent years there are fewer Russian and other Slavic children due tolower birthrates and out-migration. The decrease of children from Slavic families isclosely related to the fact that the largest group of emigrants since 1990 has beenfrom age group 25-45.12 Many children emigrated with their parents and theemigration of younger people also limits the number of future children in this agegroup. Exact demographic studies are missing, but it is estimated that about 25,000non-Latvian children of school age have emigrated from Latvia since 1991.13
In addition, the demographic shift is due to a proportional increase of Latvianchildren being born since the mid-1980s. Compared to Latvians, all other ethnicgroups—except Gypsies—show a proportional decrease in births (Table 2). In purenumbers, all groups show a decline in births since 1985, except for Latvians between1985 and 1990.
These data suggest that in the future, proportionally even more children will beattending Latvian schools due to demographic trends. As evident from Table 1, thistrend is reinforced by a gradual shift in school choice. Although the process is veryslow, more Latvian, Russian, and "other" children are enrolling in Latvian programs.One explanation of the slowness of the shift is the inertia of enrollment, e.g., oncea child is enrolled in a certain school, parents tend to be reluctant to move the childand disrupt the child's education. The enrollment pattern seems to have a 9-12 yearlife span. The existing pattern started to change in the lower grades at the time of there-establishment of independence in 1991. Yet change has been very slow indeed,and that also relates to the surprisingly many Latvian children attending Russianschools. One reason is that as late as 1995-1996 some districts in the Latgale regionhad no Latvian schools at all. This again constitutes a legacy of decades ofRussiiication policy that has proven to be difficult to reverse.14
288
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
ETHNIC INTEGRATION AND SCHOOL POLICIES IN LATVIA
It is pertinent to consider the meaning of the nominal nationality of school childrenas recorded in various statistics. The data in Table 2 result from the practice of theOffice of Civil Status Registration to summarize data based on the passport national-ity of mothers.15 As to the recorded nationality of school children, the practice is thatit is written into school documents when a child first enters school and then officialstypically look at a birth certificate to verify all personal data. Both the father's andthe mother's nationality are listed on birth certificates, but as a rule the child isassumed to have the mother's nationality. Since no official regulations exist on howto record nationality,16 it is possible that some school officials record whatever aparent says, and recently some parents—especially in mixed marriages—may feelthat it is more advantageous to list their child as being Latvian, thus reinforcing theproportional increase of Latvians among school children.
2. Assimilation into Latvian Instruction Schools
As is evident from Table 1, few non-Latvian children attend Latvian instructionschools: so far the use of schools for assimilating minority or settler children hasbeen minimal. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule and these exceptionshave opened up public discourse about the consequences of Russophone childrenattending Latvian language schools. The prevailing view among both Latvians andnon-Latvians is that this represents arbitrary mixing that causes more problems thanit solves. Due to the pervasiveness of this point of view it is unlikely that any largeshifts will occur in the near future.
Some arguments why children from various ethnic backgrounds should or shouldnot mix in schools are evident from some research undertaken in 1996. A survey ofparents of children from mixed or Russian-speaking families who attended Latvianprimary schools in Riga in 1995-1996, notes the following motives (multipleanswers possible): 65% "if a child lives in Latvia it should know the Latvianlanguage, culture, and traditions, in order to integrate into society;" 37% "it will beeasier to get higher education;" 27% "easier to find a job;" 25% want the child toknow Latvian better. Replies of teachers are similar.17 When evaluating outcomes,67% of teachers felt that the presence of children from mixed or non-Latvian familiesresulted in Latvian children having better relations with non-Latvians. Negativeaspects mentioned are that teachers see a difference in mentality and this can affecta class if it involves too many non-Latvians. Everyone's Latvian language isincreasingly influenced by Russian words and jargon, and teaching slows down dueto need to explain things more thoroughly. Other negatives cited are that no specialprogram exists on how to handle the situation and that parents who do not speakLatvian themselves cannot help children with schoolwork and are unable to under-stand what goes on at school meetings. When asked about difficulties that thechildren encountered, 55% of parents say none, 56% of children feel that there werenone, yet only 25% of teachers feel that way. Teachers emphasize that the children
289
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
R. KARKLINS
have difficulty expressing their thoughts in Latvian, yet few of the parents or childrenmention this as a problem.18
Other sources touch on similar points. Latvian commentators usually emphasizethat Latvian students lose out because teachers need to spend more time with thenon-Latvian students whose knowledge of the language is poor. A frequent argumentrefers to problems due to different mentalities; for example, it is said that Russianchildren are much more assertive in class participation making the more modestLatvian children seem less accomplished.19 A similar argument states that if non-Latvian children attend Latvian schools they and their families are especiallygoal-oriented and energetic, and this again puts Latvian children at a comparativedisadvantage.20 Russian commentators on their part tend to argue that attendance ofnon-Latvian children in Latvian schools leads to total assimilation and neurosis.21
In sum, both Russian and Latvian public comments about assimilative policies aremostly negative.
3. The Pluralist Model Applied
The institutional separation of pupils according to language of instruction can meantwo things, it can mean that either a separatist or a pluralist policy is in place. Asnoted above, the crucial difference is that a pluralist policy means that the languageof the land—in this case Latvian—is taught extensively next to a minority language,whereas separatists focus only on the minority language. Currently both policiesexist side by side as can be illustrated by the following analysis of data on thelinguistic facility of pupils of Russian schools, as well as programmatic initiativesand reviews.
The Linguistic Facility of Pupils in Russian Schools
The Latvian language facility of students in Russian schools differs by subgroups,but about one-half are far from being fluent enough to interact with the broader socialenvironment. Talking in terms of integration and if one takes facility in Latvian asan indicator of the functional integration of non-Latvians into Latvian society, oneconcludes integration to be limited. This can be illustrated with data from varioussources.
Results of the Latvian language exam of graduates from the twelfth grade at theend of school year 1994-1995 show that while 46% did well (exam grades 8, 9, or10), 36% did poorly (grades 6 or 7), and 19% were graded an unsatisfactory 4 or 5.22
One year later, at the end of school year 1995-1996 results were only slightly better:52.9% received grades 8-10; 36.3% 6 or 7; and 11.6% 4 or 5. Those graduating fromninth grade did worse: only 26% were graded 8-10; 35.2% received grades 6 or 7;and 39% were graded an unsatisfactory 5 or lower.23 Graduates of technical schoolsalso tend to do worse on their Latvian language exams. In one Russian technical high
290
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
ETHNIC INTEGRATION AND SCHOOL POLICIES IN LATVIA
school in Jelgava nearly one-third of graduating students were unable to get anygrade, and another 36% passed only on the lowest level.24 The very poor knowledgeof Latvian among graduates from technical schools is noted in other reports as well;these reports also point out that many of the Russian graduates who know no Latvianwrongly assume that they will be able to do without it in their work life.25
A similarly problematic level of Latvian language facility emerges from a fall1995 survey of 15-18 year old students in Russian high schools all over Latvia. Ina self-evaluation of their knowledge of Latvian, only 16% of respondents state thatthey can speak it freely as well as write; another 21% think that they can speakfreely, but write badly; 28% have conversation skills; and the rest, about 35%, havepractically no knowledge of Latvian. Of those wishing to obtain Latvian citizenship(a total of 62% of the respondents), 42% state that they think they cannot pass thelanguage exam, and the same percentage thinks that they cannot pass the exam onhistory and the constitutional system.26 Similar data on language facility emerge froma survey undertaken in early 1997. Of respondents aged 15-24, one finds that 12%know no Latvian, 46% know a little, 35% have a medium level of knowledge, andonly 7% know Latvian fluently.27
Recognizing that something needs to be done, the government of Latvia hasworked with the U.N. Development Program to institute a ten-year program forteaching Latvian as a second language to school children and adults. This ambitiousprogram is funded primarily by various Western governments concerned about theslow pace of integration of the Soviet-era settler community. The purpose of thisspecial foreign aid according to the Norwegian Ambassador to Latvia is "to promotethe societal integration of non-Latvians."28 The program uses modern methods andmaterials and a pragmatic approach to language teaching, e.g., it emphasizesinterpersonal daily communication rather than principles of grammar. What's more,it involves special training programs for teachers of the Latvian language in Russianschools.29
A special program for teaching Latvian is badly needed. Commenting on howLatvian is currently taught in Russian schools, teachers have complained about thelack of books and other materials. Others have noted that about one-third of teachershave not completed teachers' college. Yet the situation differs from school to schooland region to region. Some schools do exceptionally well due to dedicated teachersand a more positive view of language learning on the part of students and schooladministrators.30 A teacher from the 95th High School in Riga argued that a changetoward using Latvian only in grades 10-12 could be brought about in two years time:"The attitudes of students have changed during the last few years. Now theyunderstand that they will need to know Latvian if they wish to go to college. In thisregard, Russian children are more goal-oriented than Latvian students. Most havedecided by grade 10 where they want to continue their studies. Most youngsters inmy school know Latvian well."31
Success in learning a language is related to attitudes toward it. Press reports differ,
291
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
R. KARKLINS
in that some highlight increasingly positive attitudes toward the study of Latvian onthe part of Russian students and schools, yet others note that despite verbalassurances basic attitudes tend to be strongly negative and resentful. Negativelanguage attitudes are seen as being related to nostalgia for the lost privileges of theSoviet era.32
If we relate ethnic integration to the ability to communicate with others in society,it is clear that a significant proportion of non-Latvian schoolchildren are hamperedby a poor knowledge of Latvian. In the past, Russian monolinguals expectedLatvians to speak Russian with them, but this is changing due to a growingunwillingness of Latvians to do so. What's more, the knowledge of Russian isdecreasing among younger age groups. Roughly speaking one can say that whileabout one-half of Russian children know no Latvian, about one-half of Latvianchildren know no Russian. While Russian was an obligatory and intensively taughtsubject during the Soviet era, lately more and more students study English and otherforeign languages. Of all school children in Latvia in 1996-1997 studying a foreignlanguage, 57.6% were studying English, 26% Russian, 21.7% German, and 1%French.33 Even more children would study Western languages if they could, but thechoice is limited by a scarcity of English-language teachers, job tenure of Russian-language teachers, inertia, as well as other factors, including political attitudes. Oneschool principal argued that Latvian children learn Russian more easily than En-glish,34 and in another case a parliamentary deputy from Liepaja complained that hisson had to study Russian as his foreign language even though parents had offered topay supplementary fees for English instruction, but school officials did not arrangethem.35
4. The Intermediate Approach of Teaching Some Courses in Latvian in RussianSchools
In an attempt to promote the knowledge of Latvian the Ministry of Education hasrequired since Fall 1995 that Russian instruction schools use it to teach two or threesubjects. Due to lack of preparation, few schools were able to implement this duringschool year 1995-1996, and problems continued in the following year. When theEducation Ministry surveyed the actual situation in 63 Russian schools in Fall 1996,it found that Latvian was often used in courses with comparatively less need forlanguage, e.g., the following subjects were taught in Latvian in order of frequency:(1) physical education; (2) music and art; (3) home economics, trade instruction,geography; (4) history, biology, chemistry; (5) math, regional studies, culturalhistory. Of the 2,392 teachers involved, 42% had a native language knowledge ofLatvian, 25% had passed the highest (first) level of language certification, but asmany as 32% had passed the second level only. There were regional differences inthe quality of teaching, with the highest success noted in Kurzeme and Zemgalewhere most teachers are native Latvian speakers. In other areas, all too many
292
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
ETHNIC INTEGRATION AND SCHOOL POLICIES IN LATVIA
teachers know Latvian poorly and pass mistakes on to the children. The report alsonoted insufficient support by schoolbooks and other learning materials, including alack of Latvian/Russian dictionaries.36
The special ten-year language learning program aims at responding to such needsat least in part. It has developed an initial program to provide special training toteachers who start teaching in Latvian instead of Russian. Special Latvian languagecourses for 16-20 year olds and other initiatives are planned as well. In contrast tothis special program, segments of the Education Ministry have tended to emphasizethat new official requirements are important to signal the government's intent, butthat the minority groups have to do their part in reacting constructively. In large part,the Ministry puts the burden of program implementation on individual schools. Forexample, one representative noted that much initiative can be taken by schooladministrators themselves, who should also keep in mind that good languageknowledge will promote the naturalization of their pupils.37 The Ministry feels thatit has done all it can to teach more teachers and provide more materials and that,while it recognizes that not all schools are able to comply with the requirement ofteaching two or three courses in Latvian, it was important to put the requirement inplace to set goals and motivate people toward fulfilling them.38 In a similarstatement, the Chairwoman of the Association of Teachers of Latvian as a SecondLanguage has said that while there are not enough materials for additional teachingin Latvian, many teachers themselves have not done their part to prepare for teachingin Latvian since they did not believe that the policy would be implemented.39 Nowthat there is more pressure to comply, many schools are improvising ways to do so.
In the long run, the use of Latvian to teach some subjects in Russian schools maybe a promising approach to promote both linguistic and attitudinal integration.Experts on language change feel that about 50% of instruction in schools needs tobe in a certain language in order to make that language fully functional, yet in 1996Russian language schools taught only 10% of courses in Latvian.40 There is also alink between language and course content: once a subject is taught in Latvian,e.g., geography or history, Latvian textbooks are bound to be used and teachers willlook for additional instructional material in Latvian rather than Russian. Teachers inRussian schools mostly have graduated from Soviet pedagogical colleges in variousparts of USSR and often know little about Latvia. They tend to use instructionalmaterials from Soviet times, or from contemporary Russia. Today, of approximately120 textbooks used in Russian schools, at most one-third are published in indepen-dent Latvia; others are remnants from the Soviet era or are imported from Russia.41
This hardly encourages civic integration.
5. A Pluralist School System
A pluralist school policy emphasizing minority schools with an integrative programhas slowly expanded over time. A pluralist school system characterized inter-war
293
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
R. KARKLINS
Latvia, and policy makers have tried to re-establish the model since the early periodof self-assertion of popular forces in Latvia in 1988. It has been an uphill battle dueto resource limitations as well as the ingrained Soviet approach of Russification ofsmaller minorities. As recently noted by a Belorussian member of the President'sCouncil for Nationalities, Maija Briede, under Soviet rule many members of smallminorities lost their native language and culture because these were not taught inschools. While arguing that a pluralist approach needs to start in pre-schools, shegives a clear definition of its essence: "Non-Latvians would like their children tolearn both languages in kindergarten: the native language as a means to retain theirparticular national identity and the Latvian language for building consciousnessabout their state identity—the identity of the state in which they live."42
Recently re-established Polish schools in Latvia come closer to this ideal andpresent the prototype of pluralist policies. Since 1989 Polish schools have multipliedand in school year 1996-1997 enrolled a total of 844 students. The biggest successis the Polish 12-year school in Riga founded in 1991. Its stated goals are to preparestudents so that they are qualified to attend college either in Latvia, Poland, or othercountries. The Ministry of Education has arranged with Poland for the exchange ofteachers, students, and teaching materials. In 1995-1996, 19 teachers from Polandtaught in Latvia. These schools aim at integrating children in a Latvian environmentand at the same time harmonizing "everything that is specific to the Polish people(in the language, culture, traditions) with the values that join together all citizens ofLatvia (the territory, history, the present, and the future)."43 In this school, greatattention is paid to Latvian beginning with the first grade, and by the fourth gradeabout half of all instruction is in Latvian. The school experiments with modernlanguage teaching methods and ways to promote cultural integration. In June 1996,under an arrangement with a primary school in Zaube, Polish children spent threeweeks at that school living with Latvian families.44 In addition, Polish schools fostertheir own folklore and cultural groups, and have renewed Polish scouting in Latvia.
Other minority schools present variations of the pluralist model. Since an Estonianschool in Riga includes many children from mixed Latvian/Estonian parentage, mostinstruction there is in Latvian, with special subjects being taught in Estonian.45 Incontrast, most instruction in the Jewish school in Riga is in Russian, with a fewsubjects being taught in Hebrew. It is characteristic of this type of minority schoolsthat they focus on a specific native culture and language as a subject of study, ratherthan a means of instruction. The fact that Russian dominates in some of these schoolsis a legacy of Soviet Russification policies. Thus, most Poles in the Latgaleregion—as well as some Latvians—lost facility in their native languages during theSoviet era, yet have retained their nominal ethnic identity in passports as well as inself-identification. Due to historical religious identification, most of these Poles andLatvians are Catholics in name and partly in practice.46
The expansion of a pluralist minority school system is hampered by resourceproblems. Data of the Riga school board show that minority schooling is expensive:
294
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
ETHNIC INTEGRATION AND SCHOOL POLICIES IN LATVIA
while in 1995 one student in a general school cost 58 lats, the cost was 130 lats inthe Polish experimental school, 125 lats in the Ukrainian school, and 81 lats in theEstonian school.47 Sometimes the additional costs of minority schools are borne bythe countries of ethnic origin. As noted, Poland has supported Polish schools inLatvia with teachers and numerous other resources. Ukraine on its part has promisedto subsidize a new Ukrainian school in Riga with $2 million.
In the course of debates about ways to improve Latvian language teaching inRussian schools, some Russian cultural groups in May 1996 presented a program thatbasically proposes the application of the pluralist model to Russian schools. Theauthors accept that Latvian language facility is needed for integration and aim at"fluency in the official language of the country while maintaining one's nativelanguage and avoiding transformation of the minority school into a Latvianschool."48 Referring approvingly to pluralist educational policies of Latvia during thefirst independence period, the authors argue that today a similar system needs to bepursued more actively. In proposing what they call a "bilingual school," the authorsargue that next to obligatory courses in the native language there needs to beintensive teaching of Latvian and that some subjects that are linked to Latvia suchas geography and history should be taught in Latvian as well. Students should beable to opt to take even more courses in Latvian if they should wish to do so. Newprograms need to be developed for teacher retraining and a special emphasis shouldbe put on Latvian language teaching in pre-school. Commenting on the proposal, thechairman of the Russian Cultural Society in Latvia, Jurij Abizov, stated that theauthors feel that the current level of the use of Latvian in Russian schools isunsatisfactory, yet changes have to come slowly.49
As of May 1997, no programmatic changes in this direction have been imple-mented, and policy debates continue.
6. Integrate Through Joint Facilities?
In some cases, Russian and Latvian classes are taught under the same roof. Althoughworking as two separate schools, their physical closeness makes it a separate casethat could have special integratiye potential. Experience with this type of school inSoviet times usually showed the opposite, e.g., that forced contact led to worse ratherthan better ethnic relations.50 As a remnant of forced "internationalist" policies of theSoviet period, this type of school has been unpopular and was phased out immedi-ately after restoration of Latvia's independence; but recently there has been anincrease in joint facilities. There were 127 "two-track" schools in 1992-1993 and1993-1994, but 145 in school year 1995-1996.51 The latter can be explained byLatvian classes being added in a number of Russian schools, in particular in theLatgale region where there has been a shortage of Latvian schools. Other reasonshave been pragmatic, e.g., teachers have a vested interest in retaining or even addingseparate classes in Latvian or Russian because then they can earn two salaries, and
295
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
R. KARKLINS
many small schools have been combined or merged due to financial and otherdifficulties. The latter is likely to intensify in the next few years as the number ofstudents declines dramatically due to demographic pressures.52
Theoretically the "joint" school could form the basis for a more integratededucational system, but so far there is little indication of a developed conception inthis regard. More needs to be known about the quality of interaction in these schools.At a minimum, the joint facilities provide a potential for better integration, suchas Russian students having access to a library that has a developed literaturecollection in Latvian. Yet the legacy of the Soviet era weighs heavily on this model.Thus a suggestion by the language learning program sponsored by the U.N.Development Program about internships for Russian teachers in Latvian schools andLatvian teachers in Russian schools have been categorically rejected by most Latvianteachers who call this another form of "imposed brotherhood."53 As argued in thecomparative literature, integrative policies can backfire if imposed against the will ofparticipants.
7. Debates About Paths to Integration
Major shifts in language learning and behavior take much time and huge resources,neither of which Latvia has had in the short and poverty-ridden post-Soviet era.Nevertheless, it is still surprising to see how little the school system has changedsince the restoration of independence. The subdivision of the schools into twoseparate structures, each with its own language of instruction, has continued.Nevertheless, changes have occurred in that some pluralist oriented schools forminorities have been added and the Latvian language has been taught more inten-sively. The overall trend is toward a strengthening of pluralist approaches so thatminority cultures are retained and Latvian is taught more decisively. However,change toward this officially postulated goal has been slow.
Of the three possible approaches to language policy in schools, all three areimplemented to some extent, and all three have their supporters. To date, assimilationhas been least prevalent; there has been a gradual but slow increase of pluralistapproaches; and separation on the basis of language has been the dominant approach.Most Latvians and non-Latvians seem to find the status quo acceptable, as there havebeen relatively few suggestions for change. Whenever a proposal for change is made,it typically meets with heated objections by one or the other policy subgroup whofeels that the fragile existing balance should not be upset.
Support for specific policies can be illustrated by survey data. Although it isvariegated, one can summarize Russian public opinion as wanting to retain Russianinstruction schools, but with better and more intense teaching of Latvian. Onerepresentative survey shows that many Russian families are concerned about futureavailability of general education in Russian.54 Another 1995 survey shows that 91%of Russians desire that their children learn Latvian,55 and at the same time 64%
296
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
ETHNIC INTEGRATION AND SCHOOL POLICIES IN LATVIA
of Russians and 61.5% of Latvian respondents say that the teaching of theLatvian language currently is unsatisfactory. As for the type of school, 17% ofRussian respondents state that Russian schools should teach only in Russian; 44%want instruction to be in Russian with Latvian taught as a second language; 29%want Russian schools with some subjects taught in Latvian; 10% prefer studies to bein Latvian with some subjects in Russian; 1% say that no special Russian schoolsare necessary. In sum, Russian language separatism or assimilation into Latvian aresupported by relatively small groups (17% and 11% respectively). The largestrespondent group supports a minimalist pluralist policy, with another significantgroup supporting more extensive language pluralism. Most Russians in Latvia wishto retain a Russian cultural identity with some Latvian cultural skills being "added-on," primarily for instrumental reasons.56
This minimalist pluralist view of most of the Russophone population is hardlyvisible if one examines the public debate. The benefits of learning Latvian are rarelymentioned by Russian political leaders or by the Russian-language press. Thepredominant tone of comments on Latvia's school policy is one of grievance andprotest against alleged encroachments on Russian language education.57 Analysis ofactual policies and trends and detached commentary are rare. More typically there isemotional overreaction to new policy initiatives. For example, a commentatordeclared that the government was endangering human rights by requiring Russianschools to teach two or three subjects in Latvian.58 Another overreaction occurred inApril 1996 when protest actions were launched in response to governmental initia-tives to consolidate some Russian schools and draft a new education law. A vocalconflict broke out when the Riga School Board decided to merge two neighboringRussian high schools with dwindling enrollments and to transform one of the schoolsinto a Ukrainian school. The school board argued that a fair minority policy impliedsupport for a Ukrainian school, even more so since Ukraine had promised $2 millionin support of the new school. It also argued that the two schools that were mergedare geographically close (same street), no teacher will have to lose a job, plus theoverall number of school children in Russian schools in Riga had decreased by28,600 since 1990. The school board held meetings with parents and teachers, butfound little understanding.59 Few Russian schools have been closed in Latvia, but,when it has happened, comments in the Russian press have been very bitter anddismissive of arguments about declining numbers of pupils, of emigration ofSoviet-era military personnel, or of other reasons.60
Another outcry illustrating Russian sensitivity to anything looking like an en-croachment on the status quo arose in early 1996 when the parliament debated thefirst draft of an education law that foresaw the phasing out of state-supportedRussian-language high schools (grades 10-12) by year 2005. Russian media attackedthis initiative as discriminatory. The Equal Rights party collected 54,000 signaturesin protest.61 One of the most vocal representatives of recent settlers, Boris Cilevics,expressed the alarmist view that if all public high schools should switch to Latvian
297
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
R. KARKLINS
by 2005, "Russian children no longer will be able to get a secondary education."62
Due to this and other complications in the drafting of the new education law, it wasput on ice with several Latvian politicians commenting that it had to be adjusted, butthat concrete goals and programs needed to be specified.63 More recent drafts of thelaw envisage that Russian high schools would gradually switch to teaching aboutone-half of their courses in Latvian by year 2005.64 This corresponds to the pluralistapproach.
Governmental policy-making is hampered by the contradictory attitudes of sub-groups of the ethnic minorities and the settler population: while some groups andespecially leaders negate any increased learning of Latvian, others attack thegovernment for not teaching it enough. In April of 1996 the "Harmony Party" askedthe government to censure the Education Minister for not having done enough toimprove Latvian language instruction.65 Yet a scholar studying the Russian com-munity in Latvia notes a widespread feeling that "due to the language and schoolpolicy the Russians of Latvia are endangered by assimilation."66 Policy-making isstrained even more by the polemic intervention of Russian politicians. Whenever acontroversy arises in Latvia, various politicians in Russia add their voice to theoutcry. After the April 1996 merging of the two Russian schools in Riga and the firstreading of the new education law, the State Duma of Russia in June 1996 sent a letterto President Yeltsin protesting these events as a violation of the rights of Russian-speakers in Latvia. It argued that the goal of these measures was to "liquidate the useof the Russian language in public life in Latvia," and urged economic sanctions if"the campaign to close Russian schools and the draft law on education should beadopted in their currently discriminatory form."67
On their part, officials of the Education Ministry of Latvia have argued that it isthe duty of the state to provide an education that will allow school graduates to befully employable and to continue their studies in higher schools. "Those who do notknow the state language well will hardly have such possibilities" and, therefore, thegovernment needs to enhance the teaching of Latvian.68 In fact, press reports onunemployment among youth conclude that not knowing Latvian is a problem whenlooking for a job.69
School policy has played a relatively insignificant role in election campaigns,although the parties who traditionally pay more attention to cultural concerns ofRussians or Latvians have had something to say. Contrasting positions were evidentin the party platforms during local elections on 9 March 1997. The Russian Partypromised to "guarantee the opportunity to receive education in the native languageon every level of schooling; establish in the cities a network of Russian nationalschools on the basis of existing Russian schools; prevent the firing of teachers anddirectors of Russian schools on the basis of language, ethnicity, or citizenship." TheEqual Rights party asked that the two Russian high schools in Riga that were mergedbe reinstated in their former facilities. In contrast, the Latvian National IndependenceParty welcomed the forming of a school for the Ukrainian minority after the merger
298
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
ETHNIC INTEGRATION AND SCHOOL POLICIES IN LATVIA
of the two Russian schools, thus reflecting the party's policy that minority schoolinstruction should be in the language of both the respective minority, and in Latvian.It also supports the "gradual transformation of schools with Russian languageinstruction into schools with Latvian language instruction." In addition, the Father-land and Freedom Party said that it would "promote the transition of the educationalsystem to Latvian only as the language of instruction."70
One should note that the party leader of Fatherland and Freedom, Maris Grinblats,was Education Minister from December 1995 to March 1997, but that little changedin actual school policy while he held office. Grinblats's official position was in favorof gradually eliminating publicly-funded schools in languages other than Latvian. Heargued that "change must come in order to promote a national state based on a singlecommunity of people."71 While this suggests the introduction of a gradual assimila-tionist policy, Latvia's official policy to date is far from assimilation and, in fact,struggles to secure bilingualism among monolingual non-Latvian speakers. In ad-dition, official policy has a pluralist intent. As noted by the Chairman of theparliamentary committee dealing with educational issues, Latvia does have a strategyof linguistically integrating non-Latvians through schools, but rather than simplymixing students in Latvian instruction schools, it promotes integration throughspecial programs and separate schools in minority languages.72
Conclusion
There are two huge gaps between rhetoric and practice in minority school policy inLatvia. The first gap is between the rhetoric of radical Russian and Latvianpoliticians who paint the picture of looming—or wished for—linguistic assimilationwhen, in fact, more than 94% of Russian pupils attend Russian instruction schools.The other gap is between stated governmental policy and the de facto inertia ofSoviet-era practices. Officially, Latvian schools are stated to have been movingtoward an extensive pluralist approach, with special minority schools for smallerminorities, and bilingual schools for Russian pupils. In fact, movement toward thisgoal has been slow, with most members of smaller minorities still being Russified,and only half of Russian pupils being integrated linguistically into the larger Latvianenvironment. Both of these gaps are astounding in themselves and also in that theyappear to result less from calculated political interest than from lack of analysis ofwhat is happening in the practical realm. This too appears to be a legacy of theSoviet era when mythical programs were seen as more real than actual events.
The reality in the school system of Latvia today is that it has, since the Soviet era,consisted of two sub-systems. The main difference between the two subsystems is inthe language of instruction, but other differences exist in regard to textbooks, teachertraining and other aspects that need to be studied more intensively. More Latviansand other non-Russians continue to attend Russian schools than the other wayaround, although there is a slow trend toward increased enrollment in Latvian-
299
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
R. KARKLINS
language schools. Since independence, the Latvian state has financed a huge numberof Russian schools, as well as some special schools for Poles and other minorities.The overall level of structural integration and personal interaction among students ofdifferent ethnic groups is low.
Linguistic integration is comparatively low as well, if one considers that fewer andfewer Latvian children study Russian and that the level of Latvian language facilityamong Russophones is unsatisfactory on the aggregate level. There are subgroups ofstudents with a good facility of Latvian, and, in fact, numerous commentators haveemphasized that the Russophone population differs greatly in the extent to which itknows Latvian and is willing to integrate. Nevertheless, the overall educationaloutcome in regard to the ability of students to communicate within a multiethnicenvironment is poor. As it stands, there is practically no indication of Latviaassimilating its minorities. The implementation of pluralist policies occurs in partonly if one defines pluralism as the retention of minority languages combined withthe acquisition of a joint state language. There is a partial pluralist policy in thatsome minority and Russian schools do a good job of teaching the Latvian languageas well as other subjects dealing with Latvia; yet there are also many schools thatretain a basically extraterritorial orientation toward Russia. Graduates of theseschools know Latvian poorly and know little about Latvia. It appears that thissegment of Latvia's school system poses the biggest challenge in terms of long-termethnopolitical strategy.
NOTES
* Revised version of a paper presented at the convention of the Association for the Study ofNationalities, New York, 24 April 1997. The work leading to this report was supported inpart from funds provided by the National Council for Soviet and East European Research andthe International Research and Exchange Board. I gratefully acknowledge their support, aswell as support by the Rockefeller Center for Scholars, Bellagio, Italy. Neither is responsiblefor the content or findings of this report.
1. See also Rasma Karklins, "Ethnopolitics and Language Strategies in Latvia," paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC,28 August 1997, and other papers, forthcoming.
2. Anatol Lieven for one has revised his earlier gloomy statements about increasing ethnicconflict in the Baltic States. Response to questions, "Nation-Building in the Baltic States"Conference at the University of Chicago, 2-4 May 1996.
3. Donald L. Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press,1985).
4. Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977); andRasma Karklins, Ethnopolitics and Transition to Democracy: The Collapse of the USSR andLatvia (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), ch. 1 and 2.
5. Dietrich A. Loeber, "Language Rights in Independent Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania," inS. Vilfan, ed., Ethnic Groups and Language Rights, Vol. III (New York: New YorkUniversity Press, 1993), pp. 221-249; Detlef Henninh, "Die Sprachenpolitik und dieGewährleistung des Bildungswesens nationaler Minderheiten in Lettland," in Boris Meissner
300
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
ETHNIC INTEGRATION AND SCHOOL POLICIES IN LATVIA
et al., eds, Der Aujbau einer freiheitlich-demokratischen Ordnung in den baltischen Staaten(Hamburg: Bibliotheca Baltica, 1995), pp. 257-289.
6. For more details see Karklins (1994), pp. 151-157.7. Izglïtïbas un Zinätnes Ministrija, Latvijas Skolu un Statistikas Datu Kopsavilkums, Vol. III
(Riga, 1997), pp. 33-34.8. Ina Druviete, ed., The Language Situation in Latvia: Sociolinguistic Survey (Riga: Latvian
Language Institute, 1995), p. 2.9. Diena, 23 March 1996.
10. Skolu datu kopsavilkumi, op. cit., p. 39.11. Ministry of Education, unpublished statistical tables.12. Pärsla Eglite, "Tautas izmiršanas draudi un to noveršanas iespējas," Latvijas Vēstnesis,
7 February 1996.13. The net migration from Latvia in 1991-1995 was 114,968. Central Statistical Bureau of
Latvia, Demographic Yearbook of Latvia 1996 (Riga, 1996), p. 116. I calculate that roughly20% were of school age, since in 1994, 24% of emigrants fell into the 7-19 age group.Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, Demographic Yearbook of Latvia 1995 (Riga, 1995),p. 136.
14. Ilmärs Mežs, "Mäcïbu valoda Latvijas skolās," Izglītība un Kultura, 26 January 1996, p. 11.15. Personal information, Bureau of Statistics.16. Personal information, Ministry of Education and a school director.17. Dzintra Liepina, Nelatviešu un jaukto gimenu bērnu integräcijas latviešu sakumskolā peda-
gogiskie aspekti (Riga: Latvijas Universitātes Pedagogiska un Psihologijas katedra, 1996),p. 31. The findings are based on questionnaires of 49 parents and 12 teachers, as well as oralinterviews with 31 children.
18. Liepina, pp. 34-38, 45.19. Māra Saturina, "Integrācija -- mīts vai realitāte?" Izglītība un Kultūra, 27 June 1996; also
Diena, 15 March 1995.20. Ēriks Vēbers, "Asimilācija ... bet kāda?" Izglītība un Kultūra, 16 May 1996, p. 14.21. On psychological consequences see SM Segodnja, 2 October 1995, also 7 June 1995.22. Diena, 4 September 1995.23. Ministry of Education, unpublished statistics.24. Jelgavas Zinas, 6 March 1996. The same report notes that several teachers in the school had
false language certification papers.25. Unpublished report of Riga Language Attestation Committee, 1995, undated.26. Survey undertaken by the Naturalization Board, Fall 1995, N = 2,495.27. Baltic Data House survey of February/March 1997; representative country-wide sample. The
survey was sponsored by UNDP.28. Diena, 19 April 1995.29. Diena, 9 October 1995; 7 December 1996, other reports.30. Detailed reports on successes at Russian schools are in Neatkariga Cina, 1 July 1995,
Izglītība un Kulūra, 30 November 1995, et al.31. Izglīitība un Kultūra, 6 February 1997, p. 7.32. Letters of teachers of Latvian in Russian schools, Rīgas Balss, 21, 28 May, 1996.33. Central Statistics Bureau of Latvia, Educational Institutions in Latvia at the Beginning of
School Year 1996/97, Statistical Bulletin (Riga, 1997), pp. 45, 48.34. Diena, 6 February 1996, p. 2.35. Diena, 8 November 1995.36. Ministry of Education, internal report, 17 January 1997, p. 36.37. Izglītība un Kultūra, 18 April 1996; also 13 February 1997.
301
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
R. KARKLINS
38. Diena, 17 May 1996.39. Diena, 20 April 1996.40. Izglīltība un Kultūra, 18 April 1996.41. Ministry of Education, personal communication; on problems with books see also Dinaburg,
28 November 1996.42. Diena, 25 February 1997.43. Cited in Ēriks Jēkabsons, Poli Latvijā (Riga: Ethnic Studies Center of Academy of Sciences,
1996), p. 82.44. Ibid., p. 83.45. Ilmārs Mežs, Diena, 15 March 1995.46. Jēkabsons, op. cit., p. 67.47. Cited in Jēkabsons, p. 82.48. Text in Bizness&Baltija, 20 May 1996.49. Diena, 27 May 1996, p. 3.50. Rasma Karklins, Ethnic Relations in the USSR: The Perspective from Below (London: Allen
and Unwin, 1986).51. Latvijas Vēstnesis, No. 107, 1996, p. 4.52. Izglīltība un Kultūra, 13 February 1997; Labrit, 6 December 1994. On decline of births, see
Table 2.53. Nils Muižnieks and Angelita Kamenska, "Latvian Language Training: Alternative Concep-
tions of Integration," manuscript, 1997, p. 6.54. Baltic Data House Survey, November 1996.55. Druviete (1995), question 28.56. The instrumental nature of language learning motives is evident from several UNDP surveys
fielded by the Baltic Data House in June 1996, and February/March 1997. The two mosthighly ranked motives are that Latvian is "a necessity of daily life," and "need for work,career."
57. For example SM Segodnja, 18 April 1996, and 15 May 1996; Bizness Baltija, 17 April 1996.58. Mavriks Vulfsons, Globuss program, Latvian State TV1, 22 December 1995.59. Diena, 23 March 1996 and 17 April 1996.60. Sreda, 3 July 1996; Million, 5 April 1996.61. Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze, 15 May 1996; SM Segodnja, 9 December 1996.62. Statement at conference on minority issues, April 1996, Riga School of Economics, Riga.63. Diena, 24 April 1996.64. Izglītība un Kultūra, 17 April 1997.65. Diena, 20 April 1996.66. Ilga Apine, "Krievi Baltijas valsīs," Diena, 25 November 1996, p. 13.67. Diena, 26 June 1996.68. Interview, Izglītība un Kultūra, 14 March 1996, p. 6.69. Rīgas Balss, 30 January 1997.70. Izglītība un Kultūra, 6 March 1997, p. 11.71. Izglītība un Kultūra, 16 November 1995. Presumably the eventual change would retain
separate schools for Russians as the Tevzeme party rejects the individual or mass enrollmentof non-Latvian children in Latvian schools. Radio interview with Pamīra Lāce, 12 December1995.
72. Dzintars Ābikis, statement at seminar on civic integration, Riga, 7 February 1996; also Diena,5 May 1997.
302
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 12:
24 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014