Indigenous education in Russia : opportunities for healing and revival of the Mari and Karelian Indigenous groups?

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Indigenous education in Russia : opportunities for healing and revival of the Mari and Karelian Indigenous groups? © 2020 The Authors. Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published version Khanolainen, Daria; Nesterova, Yulia; Semenova, Elena Khanolainen, D., Nesterova, Y., & Semenova, E. (2022). Indigenous education in Russia : opportunities for healing and revival of the Mari and Karelian Indigenous groups?. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 52(5), 768-785. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1834350 2022 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccom20 Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20 Indigenous education in Russia: opportunities for healing and revival of the Mari and Karelian Indigenous groups? Daria Khanolainen , Yulia Nesterova & Elena Semenova To cite this article: Daria Khanolainen , Yulia Nesterova & Elena Semenova (2020): Indigenous education in Russia: opportunities for healing and revival of the Mari and Karelian Indigenous groups?, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2020.1834350 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1834350 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 20 Oct 2020. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Indigenous education in Russia: opportunities for healing and revival of the Mari and Karelian Indigenous groups? Daria Khanolainen a,b , Yulia Nesterova b,c and Elena Semenova b a Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; b Institute of Psychology and Education, Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia; c School of Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK ABSTRACT Despite being a multicultural country throughout its history, the Russian Federation has long struggled to embrace its diversity. As a result, the country’s many cultural, religious, and ethnic minority groups have been going through waves of assimilationist policies and practices. Assimilation into the Russian society enforced through formal schooling, daily life, and mass media has led to a destruction of Indigenous lifestyles, cultures, identities, and languages. This article explores the views of Russia’s Indigenous people regarding the country’s education system and its ability to support the cultural revival of Indigenous groups as well as the healing of the trauma that emerged from historical oppression. Within the scope of this article, we investigate the views of two Indigenous groups: Mari and Karelian peoples. Their insights show that despite the decrease in discrimination, the education system has not yet changed its assimilative tendencies. KEYWORDS Indigenous education; Indigenous language; Indigenous identity; minority education; Russia Introduction In recent years, Russia’s federal government has imposed a set of educational policies on republics populated by Indigenous peoples. This study examines and compares how representatives of two Indigenous groups view education available to them in their republics vis-à-vis the need for cultural revival and healing of the trauma of the past practices in what we see as a postcolonial shift in the country. We look at two republics and their Indigenous/titular nations – Mari El and Karelia. Both have a special status in Russia which is being diminished by the current federal government’s actions, including cuts in financial and administrative support for minority groups and appointments of non-Indigenous governors who have no awareness of Indigenous issues in the republics. Although the main focus of this article is formal education available in the two republics, there are important non-educational and non-formal education aspects. A brief overview of these issues helps to explain the impact of education systems on Russia’s Indigenous peoples, especially given the lack of literature on the topic. Indeed, the current educational landscape in the republics cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider context of colonialism and how education ‘is shaped by a range of economic and political forces’ (Tikly and Bond 2013, 423). CONTACT Daria Khanolainen [email protected] , Jyväskylä 40600, Finland Summary table for all participants: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12024018 Interview questions: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12662759 COMPARE, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1834350 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (2008) positions the country as a multinational state with power lying in the hands of the diverse nations inhabiting it. Although today 80% of Russia’s population identify as ethnically Russian, more than 190 ethnic groups, including Indigenous peoples, populate the country (FSSS 2010). Each ethnic group has distinctive history, language, customs, and traditions. A decree about Russia’s small-numbered Indigenous peoples legally recognises only 47 ethnic groups as ‘Indigenous minority peoples’ (Government of the Russian Federation 2000). The classification is based mainly on the quantitative index with an arbitrary threshold of 50,000 people. There are ethnic groups that are considered Indigenous but are not recognised as such in the legislation as their numbers exceed the small-numbered minority threshold. Among these groups are 24 titular nations, the term for Indigenous peoples introduced by Soviet officials who viewed the term ‘Indigenous’ to be inappropriate and only applicable in the context of countries with a colonial past. Soviet ideological efforts aimed at constructing the image of the country as a non-colonial power hence the terms with colonial connotations were replaced with something ideologically suitable (Donahoe et al. 2008). A titular nation implies a non-Russian ethnic group that dominates a particular geographic area that historically comprised their traditional land (Yusupova 2016). These traditional lands were named (‘titled’) after each titular nation and granted an official status of a republic, becoming ‘the “homelands” of non-Russian minorities’ (Zajda 2003, 115). For example, the Republic of Karelia is the homeland of the Karelian titular nation while the Republic of Mari-El is the homeland of the Mari titular nation. Although these groups are not qualified legally to be referred to as Indigenous in Russia due to their comparatively larger population, they maintain a traditional way of life, inhabit remote areas, and identify as distinct autochthonous ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups aspiring to preserve their distinctive identities and traditional territories. These indicators are in line with the definition of Indigeneity put forward by Special Rapporteur on Discrimination against Indigenous Populations J. Martinez Cobo (1986) that is widely used in the international discourse on Indigenous issues and rights. This year, Mari El and Karelia are celebrating their centenary as Republics. In view of the occasion, we deem it important to take time to reflect on the Republics’ journeys of being autonomous homelands of the Mari and Karelian peoples. Background Russia has a long and complicated history of becoming the largest country in the world through tenacious expansion and incorporation of peoples with distinct cultures, languages, and religions. In the Soviet Union, Indigenous peoples witnessed many drastic policy shifts which have been described as a ‘pendulum swinging’ (Kolstø and Edemsky 1995) and the oscillation ‘between the two poles of Russification and ethnophilia’ (Gorenburg 2006, 27). Indeed, while some Soviet periods represented ‘the most extravagant celebration of ethnic diversity that any state had ever financed’ (Slezkine 1994, 414), others were dominated by ethnic cleansing, forced relocation, and harsh assimilation policies (Chankseliani 2017; Martin 1998; Romanova 2007) in attempts ‘to break down the opposition to Russian Slav hegemony’ and ‘create a sense of unity’ (Watson 2007, 256). The Soviet government contributed towards drastically changing the demographic composition of the Soviet republics by encouraging large numbers of ethnically 2D. KHANOLAINEN ET AL. Russian people to relocate thus reducing titular nations to minorities in their homelands and helping the Russian language and culture become dominant throughout the country (Petersoo 2007). Nonetheless, during that time, writing systems were created for many languages which contributed to the development of Indigenous languages into modern literary languages. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the federal government aimed to unite the country through educational reform. For example, in 2018, the amendments to Law ‘On Education’ (Article 14, item 6) gave families living in the republics the right to ‘freely choose’ whether or not they want their child to study the native language of their Republic’s titular nation (Government of the Russian Federation 2012). Educational institutions are now switching the language of instruction to Russian to accommodate the will of Russian parents who do not see the need in Indigenous languages and, as a dominant group, outvote Indigenous parents who would like to safeguard their languages as the medium of instruction in local schools. While the changes are presented as democratic and not imposing restrictions on Indigenous education, concerns have been voiced by titular nations about the likely effects of the amendments on the proficiency levels and preservation of their languages (Yusupova 2018). Mari people and Mari language Mari are Finno-Ugric people that traditionally inhabit the Middle Volga region of Russia. The majority lives in the Republic of Mari El and constitutes 43.9% of the Republic’s population (FSSS 2010). Today the total number of the Mari is slightly under 600,000 people in the world. Despite being an official state language, there have been hindrances in the use of Mari in the public context (Zamyatin 2012). Although in the 1960s Mari language teaching was banned (MRGI 2018b), in 1990, to ‘save the nation from assimilation’ within the Russian ethnic group, activists established a non-governmental organisation ‘Mari Ushem’ to revitalise the Mari language and culture (Kondrashkina 2009, 111). In 1992, Mari was officially recognised as the official language in the Republic on the same level as Russian. Today the use of Mari is limited to everyday social interaction (Mari Uver 2018). Unlike in some republics, the requirement for public officials to have a good command of all official languages of their respective republics has been annulled in Mari El although the population has a legally protected right to interact in Mari with anyone, including the local authorities (Constitution of the Republic of Mari El 1995, Article 26). Notwithstanding the ‘Mari El Law on Languages’ that guarantees support to Marilanguage media (Government of the Republic of Mari El 1995, Articles 44, 48), in 2019, the head of the Republic ordered to issue a formerly daily newspaper ‘Mari El’, the largest newspaper in the Mari language since 1915, henceforth twice a month (Mari Uver 2019). In 2001, the department for nationality affairs within the Mari El Ministry of Education responsible for minority language programmes was closed (IHF 2006). At the same time, following the federal government policy on minority languages, schools were granted the choice whether to include the Mari Language in curricular as a subject ‘Mother tongue’ or incorporate it as a language of instruction. Some schools considered this political development as an opportunity to reduce the number of teaching staff for COMPARE 3 financial reasons and replace lessons of and in Mari by lessons of English or other subjects and provide all instruction exclusively in Russian. Consequently, there has been a significant decrease of students having an opportunity to study the Mari language and in Mari in schools. In fact, the proportion of students who choose to learn Mari has decreased from 17.6% in the 2011/2012 academic year to 10.5% in the 2018/2019 academic year (Gyilman 2019). Karelian people and Karelian Language There were 60,815 Karelian people in Russia in 2010 (FSSS 2010) and the number is steadily declining (MRGI 2018a). The majority of Karelians live in the Republic of Karelia, although they now constitute only 7.4% of the Republic’s population compared to 82.2% of ethnically Russian (FSSS 2010). The Karelian language belongs to the FinnoUgric language family and has three dialects. According to the 2010 Census (FSSS 2010), only 25,065 people spoke Karelian in Russia in 2010 and all three dialects are included in the Atlas of the world’s languages in danger (Moseley 2010). ‘Massive repression, liquidation of traditional Karelian rural communities and establishment of Russian urban communities in the Karelian ethnic area’ was ongoing until 1989 (Kurs 1994). This repression contributed to the decline of the Karelian population and the destruction of the Karelian language and culture (Williams 2020). Due to pressures to assimilate into mainstream Russian culture, public life in Karelia (administration, education, and media) is firmly centred around the Russian language, while Karelian is still striving for legal recognition. Despite being a titular nation’s language, Karelian is not recognised as the second official language in the Republic. As justification, the federal government reported the absence of functional capacities of the language and the fact that Karelian is based on the Latin script unlike all other languages in Russia that are based on the Cyrillic script (Kryuchkova 2002). Today, Karelia is the only Republic in Russia with only one official language – Russian. In 2019, 523 Karelian schoolchildren studied the Karelian language as a school subject, which constitutes 0.7% of all schoolchildren in the republic (Ethnocultural Education in the Republic of Karelia 2019). Indigenous content in education systems across the globe Literature on Indigenous education shows that Indigenous groups across the globe are dealing with similar consequences of colonialism and legacies in education systems and beyond. Formal education available to Indigenous learners has been shown to be unsatisfactory and even damaging as schools often act as implicit and explicit ‘sites of rejection of Indigenous knowledge and language’ (May and Aikman 2003, 143; see also Breidlid 2013). Dominated by knowledge, values, thought, and structures of dominant, non-Indigenous groups (St. Denis 2011), schools sidelined knowledge and ways of knowing of Indigenous peoples and disregarded the need of education for Indigenous peoples to be based on ethnic integrity and Indigeneity (Gao 2001). Examples of this process include the lack of culturally sensitive curricula, textbooks, and pedagogy that would value and incorporate Indigenous cultural references and approaches, absence of educational materials on the history of oppression of Indigenous groups, inadequate teacher education that leaves teachers unequipped to engage with deep cultural diversity, 4D. KHANOLAINEN ET AL. and the perpetuation of discriminatory attitudes against Indigenous learners (see Aitken and Radford 2018; Chodkiewicz, Widin, and Yasukawa 2008; May and Aikman 2003). One consequence of such schooling is experiences of uprooting, alienation, oppression of, and discrimination against Indigenous people (Graham and Van Zyl-Chavarro 2016). Traumatic schooling experiences of Indigenous adults, for example, contribute to the distrust and disconnection between schools and families (De Plevitz 2007) and negatively affect learning processes and outcomes of Indigenous children (Kearney et al. 2014). At the same time, Indigenous parents may be reluctant to share their painful memories of schooling with their children which means that these important stories remain forever untold and wounds unhealed (Brown 2019). Another consequence is Indigenous learners hiding their Indigenous identities and reshaping themselves to assimilate into the dominant culture. For this reason, a growing number of people come to identify as Indigenous only in adulthood (Watt and Kowal 2019), if at all. Another concern is that the exclusion of Indigenous content from formal education leads Indigenous people to question the necessity to maintain their cultures and knowledge, and, ultimately, to start seeing Indigeneity as less valid and even irrelevant (Nesterova 2019). Countries with Indigenous populations have adopted a number of approaches to strengthen Indigenous identities, revitalise Indigenous cultures, and educate Indigenous and non-Indigenous people about past injustices, their legacies and present struggles of Indigenous groups. Depending on the country, they have included antidiscrimination education (Gebhard 2018), anti-racist education (Castagno and Brayboy 2008), culturally relevant education (Kanu 2007; Castagno and Brayboy 2008; Harrington and CHiXapkaid 2013; Munns, O’Rourke, and Bodkin-Andrews 2013), multicultural education (Mason 2009), the development of inclusive school climate to promote a sense of belonging (Rahman 2013), reconciliation through education to transform divided societies (Bellino et al. 2017), and others. Yet, education of Russia’s Indigenous peoples have received virtually no attention. This study aims to fill the gap and investigate what Russia’s Indigenous peoples’ experiences can offer in understanding education needs and pursuits of Indigenous people. Theoretical framework The field of comparative education has been imbued with colonial thinking from its inception with comparativists often adopting a patronising and condescending stance towards the contexts outside the Western bubble (Crossley and Tikly 2004; Sobe 2016; Takayama 2018). As a way forward from the colonial legacy in the field, Larsen and Beech (2014) call to transcend conventional lines of demarcation and reject the binary differentiation of ‘the global’ and ‘the local’ and instead, apply spatial thinking in comparative studies focusing on ‘the relational conceptions of space through the analysis of networks, connections, and flows’ (p. 192). Similarly, Sobe (2016) argues that comparative education requires the dialogic approach of positioning oneself ‘with’ and ‘against’ the Nation State which involves taking the local context seriously while applying denationalised global thinking. In addition, Chankseliani (2017) highlighted that Russia has a central position in the (post-)Soviet space while also being a peripheral country in relation to the Western world. This means that non-Russian groups living in the (Post-)Soviet Space are at COMPARE 5 a double disadvantage – they experience two layers of colonialism (Russian and Western) resulting in them being almost completely excluded from global academic thought, including those related to Indigenous issues. In this article, we bring voices of the Mari and Karelian people to the forefront and compare educational opportunities available to them in their Republics. We do this using the lens of spatial thinking and focusing on unique contexts while also drawing on the wider Indigenous scholarship outside Russia. Furthermore, to help understand and name the persistent effects of the dominance of the Russian culture, language, truth, and values on education in formal (school) and informal (home) settings, this study adopts postcolonialism as its theoretical framework. Postcolonialism helps us understand how a dominant ethnic group legitimises is control over country’s education and how its dominance shapes the country’s Indigenous population’s identities and development, including through education. It also helps to determine how this dominance (through its assumptions, beliefs, and logic) affects the survival of Indigenous cultures, knowledge, and languages. For example, it aids the process of uncovering (1) how the education system silences other ways of knowing, learning, expressing oneself, and being, and (2) how imbalanced relationships and arrangements affect Indigenous people’s self-confidence and sense of self-worth as well as social cohesion and inter-group relationships (see Gandhi 2019; Young 2003). Postcolonialism has another role and that is of education’s potential as a site of resistance to and disruption of assimilation and mental colonisation. As Young (2003, 2) stated, ‘postcolonialism claims the right of all people on this earth to the same material and culture well-being’. This, of course, includes the right of Indigenous people to their cultural wellbeing within and beyond the education system. However, as colonial relationships – including within education – continue to order and re-order the hierarchies of knowledges, discourses, languages, and ethnic identities (see Crossley and Tikly 2004; Hickling-Hudson, Matthews, and Woods 2004), it is hard to move beyond such power dynamics unless we unpack what they are and how they affect lives in different and diverse local contexts. Russia’s Indigenous learners are assimilated into the hegemonic education system and, as such, inculcated into the culture, values, discourses, and knowledge system of the dominant ethnic group (Nasibullov and Kopylova 2020). This is done at the expense of their own languages and cultures that are viewed as primitive and irrelevant for the country’s development. Demeaning views of minority cultures are important to maintain to justify the authority of the dominant group to teach minority groups ‘how to live appropriate, enlightened lives’ (Viruru and Persky 2019). Postcolonialism helps us see that the dominant groups often construct their ‘civilising mission’ in terms of an economic growth and material prosperity while posing as concerned older siblings who know best (Preece, Modise, and Mosweunyane 2008, 270). Their real priorities, however, lie with making ‘populations economically useful and politically docile in relation to dominant global interests’ (Tikly 2004, 174). Moreover, when dominant groups enforce exclusionary curricula, it is often presented as a natural and inevitable process that ‘seems to happen organically, without intent, even though Indigenous erasure is the arch aim of settler colonialism’ (Tuck and GaztambideFernández 2013, 79). In doing so, education systems recreate colonialism long after countries abandon their colonial status (MacNaughton and Davis 2001; Borrero et al. 2012). Dismissing Indigenous ways of knowing constitutes ‘epistemological racism’ which ‘may be considered one of the most dangerous forms of racism in existence today’ (BodkinAndrews and Carlson 2016, 793). Challenging ideas that ‘shape pedagogical process, 6D. KHANOLAINEN ET AL. particularly as they relate to epistemological perspectives (the points from which information is shared) will, in most cases, no doubt, be viewed as negative and disruptive’ (hooks 2014, 184). However, to facilitate a meaningful learning process it is important to see all learners as individuals and to open the educational setting to different ways of thinking (hooks 2014). Method This is an exploratory qualitative study that compares how two Indigenous groups in Russia perceive formal and informal opportunities to learn their respective languages, cultures, histories, traditions, and other such aspects of their ethnic identities. It was conducted to collect a wide range of views within the two groups employing purposive sampling and selecting information-rich cases (Patton 2002). Over the course of a multi-stage sampling process, we employed two purposive strategies: 1) maximum variation sampling (ensuring heterogeneity of ages, levels of education, occupations and levels of involvement in Indigenous issues) and 2) snowball sampling. The choice of these strategies was determined by small population numbers in the two Indigenous groups selected for this study and their complex contexts. Among the two groups, people who spoke their respective Indigenous language represented the majority of the participants compared to those who did not. Karelian people were contacted and recruited through the website called VKontakte (VK) – the most popular social media website in the Russian Federation (460 million users at the moment of our data collection). We posted a series of online advertisements to the biggest VK communities organised by Karelian people for Karelian people. Ten Karelians participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews. We organised a similar social media call for Mari people. Unlike Karelians, however, some Mari people regarded it with an air of wariness and only a few volunteered to participate. Those who were reluctant to participate shared the feelings of bruised pride at being called ‘the minority nation’ as they inhabit their traditional lands. Indeed, in Russian, the word ‘minority’ has a negative connotation. At the same time, this group is significantly larger in numbers than Karelians and therefore easier to find participants. One researcher of this study being a Mari herself used her connections to invite Mari participants. Once she found a couple through her own network, the snowballing strategy helped recruit more participants. Overall, 10 Mari people participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews. All data were collected (audio-recorded with their consent), transcribed, coded, and analysed with the use of a qualitative content analysis approach and ATLAS.ti 8. Mari and Karelian participants have pseudonyms starting with letters M and K, respectively. Results When asked about where their knowledge about their Indigenous identities, cultures, histories, traditions, and languages came from, almost all participants talked about fragmented and unsystematic learning at home and school. Mari people had more opportunities for such learning both at home and at school: nine Mari participants reported gaining some Indigenous knowledge at home and eight at school compared to only four Karelian participants who engaged in learning at home and five who had a chance to acquire such knowledge at school. One Mari and four Karelian participants COMPARE 7 cultures, it is important to help Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to see Indigeneity as something to be proud of and Indigenous languages and cultures as relevant and valuable. Overcoming the vestiges of colonial heritage requires a substantial amount of dedicated effort. However, this effort will bring changes required to build an equitable and inclusive education system. In particular, for Indigenous people, this would foster their intrinsic motivation for meaningful learning and strengthen their confidence and dignity. Not being able to learn at home has to be compensated for at school where inclusive climate and culturally relevant curriculum and pedagogy can empower all students to see themselves as equal and feel like they belong (Rahman 2013; Kanu 2007; Harrington and CHiXapkaid 2013; Munns, O’Rourke, and Bodkin-Andrews 2013). For non-Indigenous people, this will be a step towards redress and development of a multicultural state where Indigenous peoples are accepted as equal, and to challenge and eradicate ethnic arrogance and hegemony. Acknowledgments The work was performed under the auspices of the Russian Government Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. ORCID Daria Khanolainen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1571-2938 Yulia Nesterova http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3500-8999 Elena Semenova http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0252-6295 References Aitken, A., and L. Radford. 2018. “Learning to Teach for Reconciliation in Canada: Potential, Resistance and Stumbling Forward.” Teaching and Teacher Education 75: 40–48. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2018.05.014. Bania, E. V., C. Eckhoff, and S. Kvernmo. 2015. “The Influence of Mental Health, Psychosocial Factors and Educational Skills on Educational Aspirations among Indigenous Sámi and Nonindigenous Adolescents in the Arctic.” Scandinavian Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology 3 (3): 169–179. doi:10.21307/sjcapp-2015-017. Bellino, M. J., J. Paulson, and E. A. Worden. 2017. “Working through Difficult Pasts: Toward Thick Democracy and Transitional Justice in Education.” Comparative Education 53 (3): 313–332. doi:10.1080/03050068.2017.1337956. Bodkin-Andrews, G., and B. Carlson. 2016. “The Legacy of Racism and Indigenous Australian Identity within Education.” Race Ethnicity and Education 19 (4): 784–807. doi:10.1080/ 13613324.2014.969224. Borrero, N. E., C. J. Yeh, C. I. Cruz, and J. F. Suda. 2012. “School as a Context for “Othering” Youth and Promoting Cultural Assets.” Teachers College Record 114 (2): 1–37. doi:10.18251/ijme. v18i3.1183. 14 D. KHANOLAINEN ET AL. Breidlid, A. 2013. Education, Indigenous Knowledges, and Development in Global South: Contesting Knowledges for a Sustainable Future. New York: Routledge. Brown, L. 2019. “Indigenous Young People, Disadvantage and the Violence of Settler Colonial Education Policy and Curriculum.” Journal of Sociology 55 (1): 54–71. doi:10.1177/ 1440783318794295. Castagno, A. E., and B. M. J. Brayboy. 2008. “Culturally Responsive Schooling for Indigenous Youth: A Review of the Literature.” Review of Educational Research 78 (4): 941–993. doi:10.3102/0034654308323036. Chankseliani, M. 2017. “Charting the Development of Knowledge on Soviet and Post-Soviet Education through the Pages of Comparative and International Education Journals.” Comparative Education 53 (2): 265–283. doi:10.1080/03050068.2017.1293407. Chodkiewicz, A., J. Widin, and K. Yasukawa. 2008. “Engaging Aboriginal Families to Support Student and Community Learning.” Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education 2 (1): 64–81. doi:10.1080/15595690701752880. Cobo, J. M. 1986. “Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations.” UN Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7Add.4, Paragraph 379, August 5. https://cendoc.docip.org/col lect/cendocdo/index/assoc/HASHcfed/3187d77a.dir/RapCobo_v2_ch5defIP_en.pdf Constitution of the Republic of Mari El. 1995, amend. 2014. “Constitution of the Republic of Mari El (Adopted by the Constitutional Assembly of the Republic of Mari El on 24. 06.1995)(as Amended).” https://constitution.garant.ru/region/cons_mariy/ Constitution of the Russian Federation. 2008. “Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation (Adopted by Popular Vote 12. 12.1993)(as Amended).” http://www.constitution.ru/index. htm Crossley, M., and L. Tikly. 2004. “Postcolonial Perspectives and Comparative and International Research in Education: A Critical Introduction.” Comparative Education 40 (2): 147–156. doi:10.1080/0305006042000231329. De Plevitz, L. 2007. “Systemic Racism: The Hidden Barrier to Educational Success for Indigenous School Students.” Australian Journal of Education 51 (1): 54–71. doi:10.1177/000494410705100105. Donahoe, B., J. O. Habeck, A. Halemba, I. Sántha, D. G. Anderson, G. Fondahl, . . . B. Donahoe. 2008. “Size and Place in the Construction of Indigeneity in the Russian Federation.” Current Anthropology 49 (6): 993–1020. doi:10.1086/593014. Ethnocultural Education in the Republic of Karelia. 2019. “Karelian Language in Schools in the Republic of Karelia in 2018-2019 Academic Year (In Russian).” https://edu-rk.ru/edu/info/ download/797_ab16908f7ad3a46e1e880b1d85796538 FSSS (Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation). 2010. “Russian Census (In Russian).” http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/perepis_itogi1612.htm Gandhi, L. 2019. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. New York: Columbia University Press. Gao, P. 2001. Minority, Not Minor. Taipei, Taiwan (R.O.C.): Taiwan Today, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Gebhard, A. 2018. “‘Let’s Make a Little Drum’: Limitations and Contradictory Effects of Cultural Approaches in Indigenous Education.” Race Ethnicity and Education 21 (6): 757–772. doi:10.1080/13613324.2017.1377172. Gorenburg, D. 2006. “Soviet Nationalities Policy and Assimilation.” Chap. 9 in Rebounding Identities: The Politics of Identity in Russia and Ukraine, edited by D. Arel and B. A. Ruble, 273-303. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Government of the Republic of Mari El. 1995, amend. 2011. “A Law ‘About Languages in the Republic of Mari El’ (In Russian).” http://docs.cntd.ru/document/804919247 Government of the Russian Federation. 2000, amend. 2015. “A Decree about Small-numbered Indigenous Peoples of Russia #255 (In Russian).” http://docs.cntd.ru/document/901757631 Government of the Russian Federation. 2012, amend. 2018. “A Law ‘On Education in the Russian Federation’ (In Russian).” http://zakon-ob-obrazovanii.ru/ COMPARE 15 Graham, L. M., and A. Van Zyl-Chavarro. 2016. “A Human Rights Perspective on Education and Indigenous Peoples: Unpacking the Meaning of Articles 14 and 15 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” Northeastern University Law Journal 8 (1): 135–221. Gyilman, N. 2019. “Izucheniye rodnykh yazykov v shkolakh Mari El sokraschaetsya.” [Native language classes are being reduced in Mari El schools.] Mari Uver, August 30. Accessed October 15, 2019. https://mariuver.com/2019/08/30/izuch-rod-jaz-sokr/ Harrington, B. G., and CHiXapkaid (D. Michael Pavel). 2013. “Using Indigenous Educational Research to Transform Mainstream Education: A Guide for P–12 School Leaders.” American Journal of Education 119 (4): 487–511. doi:10.1086/670962. Hickling-Hudson, A., J. Matthews, and A. Woods. 2004. “Education, Postcolonialism and Disruptions.” In Disrupting Preconceptions: Postcolonialism and Education, edited by A. Woods, 1–16. Flaxton, Queensland: Post Pressed. hooks, B. 2014. Teaching to Transgress. New York: Routledge. IHF (International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights). 2006. “Russian Federation: The Human Rights Situation of the Mari Minority of the Republic of Mari El: A Study of the Titular Nationality of One of Russia’s Ethnic Regions.” https://www.refworld.org/publisher, IHF,COUNTRYREP,RUS,46963b060,0.html Kanu, Y. 2007. “Increasing School Success among Aboriginal Students: Culturally Responsive Curriculum or Macrostructural Variables Affecting Schooling?” Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education 1 (1): 21–41. doi:10.1080/15595690709336599. Kearney, E., L. McIntosh, B. Perry, S. Dockett, and K. Clayton. 2014. “Building Positive Relationships with Indigenous Children, Families and Communities: Learning at the Cultural Interface.” Critical Studies in Education 55 (3): 338–352. doi:10.1080/17508487.2014.914963. Kolstø, P., and A. Edemsky. 1995. Russians in the Former Soviet Republics. London: Hurst & co/ Indiana University Press. Kondrashkina, E. A. 2009. “The Mari Language – A Long Way to a State Language.” [In Russian.] Voprosy teorii i praktiki 1: 108–112. Kryuchkova, T. B. 2002. “Effective Language Politics: The Case of Karelian.” Paper presented at the World Congress of Language Policies, Barcelona, Spain, April 16–20. Kurs, O. 1994. “Indigenous Finnic Population of NW Russia.” GeoJournal 34 (4): 447–456. doi:10.1007/BF00813140. Larsen, M. A., and J. Beech. 2014. “Spatial Theorizing in Comparative and International Education Research.” Comparative Education Review 58 (2): 191–214. doi:10.1086/675499. MacNaughton, G., and K. Davis. 2001. “Beyond ‘Othering’: Rethinking Approaches to Teaching Young Anglo-Australian Children about Indigenous Australians.” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 2 (1): 83–93. doi:10.2304/ciec.2001.2.1.10. Mari Uver. 2018. “Our Native Mari Language Is Crying Today.” Mari Uver. https://mariuverm. com/2018/02/14/shoch-jylm-short/ Mari Uver. 2019. “Evstifeev Limited Everything in Mari to Celebrate the International Year of Indigenous Languages.” Mari Uver. https://mariuver.com/2019/02/19/evstifeev-god-jaz/ Martin, T. 1998. “The Origins of Soviet Ethnic Cleansing.” The Journal of Modern History 70 (4): 813–861. doi:10.1086/235168. Mason, R. 2009. “Problematising Multicultural Art Education in the Context of Taiwan.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 39 (4): 455–468. doi:10.1080/03057920802366364. May, S., and S. Aikman. 2003. “Indigenous Education: Addressing Current Issues and Developments.” Comparative Education 39 (2): 139–145. doi:10.1080/03050060302549. Moseley, C., ed. 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. http:// www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas MRGI (Minority Rights Group International). 2018a. “World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. Russian Federation – Karelians.” http://minorityrights.org/minorities/ karelians/ MRGI (Minority Rights Group International). 2018b. “World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. Russian Federation – Mari.” http://minorityrights.org/minorities/mari/ 16 D. KHANOLAINEN ET AL. Munns, G., V. O’Rourke, and G. Bodkin-Andrews. 2013. “Seeding Success: Schools that Work for Aboriginal Students.” The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 42 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1017/ jie.2013.6. Nasibullov, K., and N. Kopylova. 2020. “Following the Lessons of Empire: Cultural Unification in School Music Textbooks.” Decolonising the Curriculum: Transnational Perspectives Research Intelligence 142: 24–25. Nesterova, Y. 2019. “Developing Indigenous Education in Taiwan: Indigenous Perspectives and Possibilities.” PhD diss., University of Hong Kong. Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Petersoo, P. 2007. “Reconsidering Otherness: Constructing Estonian Identity.” Nations and Nationalism 13 (1): 117–133. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2007.00276.x. Preece, J., W. C. F. O. M. Modise, and D. Mosweunyane. 2008. “Context Matters’: Whose Concept of Growth and Development are We Talking About?” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 38 (3): 267–280. doi:10.1080/03057920802066543. Rahman, K. 2013. “Belonging and Learning to Belong in School: The Implications of the Hidden Curriculum for Indigenous Students.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 34 (5): 660–672. doi:10.1080/01596306.2013.728362. Romanova, E. 2007. “The Process of Revitalisation of Culture and Indigenous Ethnic Identity: The Case of the Vepsian People in Karelia.” MSc diss., University of Tromso. Slezkine, Y. 1994. “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism.” Slavic Review 53 (2): 414–452. doi:10.2307/2501300. Sobe, N. W. 2016. “Globalization and Teaching With/against the Nation-State.” In Teaching comparative education: Trends and issues informing practice, edited by P. K. Kubow and A. H. Blosser, 151–162. Didcot, UK: Symposium Books. St. Denis, V. 2011. “Silencing Aboriginal Curricular Content and Perspectives through Multiculturalism: ‘There are Other Children Here’.” Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 33 (4): 306–317. doi:10.1080/10714413.2011.597638. Takayama, K. 2018. “Towards a New Articulation of Comparative Educations: Cross-culturalising Research Imaginations.” Comparative Education 54 (1): 77–93. doi:10.1080/ 03050068.2017.1401303. Tikly, L. 2004. “Education and the New Imperialism.” Comparative Education 40 (2): 173–198. doi:10.1080/0305006042000231347. Tikly, L., and T. Bond. 2013. “Towards a Postcolonial Research Ethics in Comparative and International Education.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 43 (4): 422–442. doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.797721. Tuck, E., and R. A. Gaztambide-Fernández. 2013. “Curriculum, Replacement, and Settler Futurity.” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 29 (1): 72–89. doi:10.1080/03626784.2016.1210944. Viruru, R., and J. C. Persky. 2019. “Postcolonial Theory and Teacher Education.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.495. Watson, K. 2007. “Language, Education and Ethnicity: Whose Rights Will Prevail in an Age of Globalisation?” International Journal of Educational Development 27: 252–265. doi:10.1016/j. ijedudev.2006.10.015. Watt, E., and E. Kowal. 2019. “To Be or Not to Be Indigenous? Understanding the Rise of Australia’s Indigenous Population since 1971.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 42 (16): 63–82. doi:10.1080/01419870.2018.1546021. Williams, V. 2020. Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History, and Threats to Survival. Santa Barbara, CA/Denver, CO: ABC-CLIO Young, R. 2003. Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yusupova, G. 2016. “The Islamic Representation of Tatarstan as an Answer to the Equalisation of the Russian Regions.” Nationalities Papers 44 (1): 38–54. doi:10.1080/00905992.2015.1061983. Yusupova, G. 2018. “Russia Is Cracking down on Minority Languages – But a Resistance Movement Is Growing.” The Conversation, September 11. https://theconversation.com/russiais-cracking-down-on-minority-languages-but-a-resistance-movement-is-growing-101493 COMPARE 17 Zajda, J. 2003. “Lifelong Learning and Adult Education: Russia Meets the West.” In Comparative Education, edited by M. Bray, 111–132. Dordrecht: Springer. Zamyatin, K. 2012. “Finno-Ugric Languages in Russian Education: The Changing Legal-institutional Framework and Falling Access to Native Language Learning.” Études finnoougriennes 1 (44): 1–40. doi:10.4000/efo.821. 18 D. KHANOLAINEN ET AL.