Chapter 3. Access and equity in higher education in Kazakhstan

Socio-economic status and participation in higher education

Kazakhstan has had difficulty in developing reliable SES information. This reflects a more general lack of data about the income levels of the population, linked in part to the presence of a substantial “grey” economy. As a consequence, there is a paucity of data related to the SES distribution of students and on the effects of SES at the school and higher education levels. Data from the Ministry of Education and Science (based on a survey of higher education institutions, to which 80 institutions replied) do indicate though that roughly two-thirds of “students from poor families” study without any financial support (i.e. pay fees) – compared to 10 percentage points fewer students in the overall student population.

Despite the lack of good SES data in Kazakhstan, there is clearly a correlation between the geographic location of students, their SES and their academic performance. In Kazakhstan, most students enter higher education – and qualify for state support – based on the results of the Unified National Test (UNT) which they sit at the end of upper secondary school. The relationship of UNT mean scores to income levels confirms a link between levels of poverty and the urban-rural divide. Rural students in Kazakhstan are more likely to be of low SES status and to perform less well on the UNT (MESRK, 2014a).

The state grants approach to financing higher education thus has a negative effect on participation in higher education by students from rural areas. Even though there is a 30% set aside of state-funded spots for rural youth, the UNT/state grant system – combined with poorer-quality rural schools that make students less prepared for the UNT – creates an inequitable financial barrier. A study by the National Center for Educational Statistics and Evaluation (NCESE, 2014) shows that UNT scores (the primary determinant of an individual’s eligibility for free university education) are correlated with regional poverty levels: in regions with high numbers of people living below subsistence level, the UNT scores were considerably lower. By way of contrast, the high-income cities of Almaty and Astana achieved the highest scores on the UNT in 2012 (NCESE, 2012).

Differences in UNT scores are also related to the language of instruction in schools – in ways that appear to be related to the rural/urban divide. In 2014, the average score on the UNT for candidates from Russian-language taught schools was 81.7%, while for students from Kazakh-language taught schools it was only 74.84% (NCESE, 2014). Those students in schools where Kazakh, Russian and English are taught appear to be comparatively advantaged over students from schools where only Russian and Kazakh are taught.

Students with a disability and other vulnerable groups

The State Program for Education Development (SPED) 2011-2020 acknowledges that inclusive education has not been well developed in Kazakhstan. About 3% of all minors in Kazakhstan are classified as having a disability (MESRK, 2010). However, according to data received from the MNERK, in 2014 students with disabilities over 18 years of age made up only about one-third of one percent of all higher education students, and two-thirds of one percent of students who were studying on a state grant. In principle, 1.2% of state-funded spaces are set aside for students with disabilities (MNERK, 2014-2015).

The higher education institutions that the OECD review team visited were poorly equipped to deal with the needs of students with disabilities. Teaching spaces were frequently inaccessible and there was little in the way of specialist equipment or facilities. Education plays a special role in assisting socially vulnerable segments of society to adapt to the expectations of modern society. According to the MNERK, approximately 98% of orphanage and foster care leavers aged 18-28 years old are enrolled in technical and vocational, higher and postgraduate education (MNERK, 2014-2015). This category of students is eligible for subsidised higher education and constitutes 1.9% of the total of all students eligible for benefits. In practice, based on data provided to the OECD review team by the Ministry of Education and Science, these students appear to make up about 0.7% of the total student population and 1.3% of students studying on state grants. They are comparatively unlikely to be studying as fee-paying students.

Gender

Over the period 2004 to 2014, the gross enrolment ratio1 of women in higher education in Kazakhstan was greater than that of men; it ranged from 65.18% in 2004 to 54.7% in 2014 (MNERK, 2014-15). This change needs to be seen in the context of an overall decline of 36% in higher education enrolments over the same time period (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Participation in higher education: gender

Sources: Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Committee on Statistics (MNERK) (2014-2015), www.stat.gov.kz.

Adult and mature-aged students

Youth between 17 and 24 years of age represent the greatest number of participants in higher education in Kazakhstan (see Figure 3.3). This reflects admissions practices that recently favour school leavers. These data do not distinguish level of study, so it is not possible to comment on the proportion of older students studying at undergraduate level.

Figure 3.3. Age distribution of higher education enrolment (2014)

Sources: JSC Information-Analytic Center (2015), “Country Background Report”, prepared for the OECD follow-up review of higher education policy in Kazakhstan, JSC Information-Analytic Center, Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana.

The OECD review team has not been able to identify the age or gender distribution of part-time students or whether part-time students are concentrated in particular institutions or locations. The MESRK reports that 75.5% of students study full time, which is in accordance with the prescribed ratio of full-time to part-time students of 4 to 1. It appears that this ratio is applied across the sector rather than at the level of individual institution. The state prescription of a ratio of full-time to part-time study across the sector likely limits the capacity of students who face financial barriers to support themselves while studying part time. The restriction on part-time enrolment numbers also militates against older students returning to study while working full or nearly full time.

Addressing the effects of prior schooling

The recent OECD Review of Secondary Education in Kazakhstan found that Kazakhstan has invested considerable effort in improving the capacity and the learning conditions of its primary and secondary schools (OECD, 2014b). Yet, there is still much to be done to eliminate persistent inequities in access to quality schooling and to ensure that all students have an equal chance of being prepared to enter higher education.

Figure 3.4. Implementation status of the 2007 OECD/World Bank recommendations

Sources: OECD/The World Bank (2007), Reviews of National Policies for Education: Higher Education in Kazakhstan 2007, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264033177-en.

To date, policy interventions have primarily benefitted those schools whose mandate is to nurture academic excellence. This focus has to some extent crowded out investments in meeting the needs of students who struggle academically and underachieve, and it has reinforced uneven levels of quality across the system. For instance, the distribution of teachers among schools is not well balanced. Well-qualified and highly effective teachers are less likely to work in disadvantaged schools, and more likely to work in schools for gifted students where additional resources and support are available.

The team that authored the Review of Secondary Education in Kazakhstan also judged that the biggest problem facing Kazakhstan schooling was the absence of education stakeholders’ knowledge and concern about the level of under-achievement. The report recommended actions that would tackle the “long tail” of under-achievement that is, the many students who fall in the lower part of the academic distribution. The team found little evidence of specific initiatives aimed at students who were struggling academically, who were falling behind their peers or were below average ability. All this suggests that there is a systemic problem in secondary schools that has had a significant effect on the academic achievement of many students, negatively influencing their ability to later gain entrance to – or succeed in – higher education.

A 2009 OECD review of the provision for students with special needs and disabilities identified a number of concerns relating to the extent to which these students experienced equal access to quality education (OECD/JRC, 2009). The 2014 Review of Secondary Education in Kazakhstan recognised that there was still some way to go before the country realised its aims for inclusion (OECD, 2014b). Indeed, many students with special needs and disabilities are still educated in special classes, in separate “correctional” schools or via home learning schemes rather than in mainstream schools. This has the effect of amplifying disadvantage, providing limited support and resources, inadequately accommodating their needs and restricting opportunities for social and academic development.

Kazakhstan has very few programmes and resources targeting the needs of students from a disadvantaged background or with learning difficulties. The current concept of disadvantage focuses narrowly on disabilities and extreme socio-economic disadvantage, and consequently identifies only a small number of students as eligible for support. In addition, the lack of standards for minimum school size and teacher quality mean that students in small schools and rural locations, particularly secondary students, are disadvantaged (OECD, 2014b).

At the “high” end of the education system, in 2011 there were 115 specialised secondary schools for gifted children. There is also a range of other schools for gifted children in Kazakhstan including the Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS). Kazakhstan’s emphasis on preparing top-performing students for participation in academic Olympiads and prioritising gifted children is detrimental to other students. When emphasis is placed on high performance and the elite, schools and teachers will frequently focus on enhancing the performance of the “best” students, rather than meeting the needs of lower-performing students.

Schools that cater to gifted students, such as the Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, receive considerably higher levels of funding than mainstream schools. However, the very notion of “giftedness” that underlies these schools is somewhat problematic in the Kazakhstani context. Students from less advantaged backgrounds have limited access to extracurricular classes to prepare for admission to elite schools. This makes it likely that “gifted” schools do not necessarily attract the most academically able in the country, but rather tend to disproportionately meet the needs of a subset – those from more advantaged backgrounds.

Kazakhstan could benefit from the introduction of programmes that use university students as peer mentors who can share their discipline knowledge and experience with secondary students, support their learning and help raise their aspirations. Such programmes might include structured visits to higher education institutions that allow secondary students to experience a university class and get a sense of campus life. An example of this sort of approach, which has been used effectively with students from disadvantaged schools in Scotland, is described in Box 3.4. To be successful, such approaches require the active engagement of higher education – the support of the senior management and involvement of faculty.

While they are only part of a bigger solution to the problems facing many Kazakhstani schools, properly implemented digital technologies do provide numerous possibilities for delivering high-quality “just-in-time” and “just-in-case” resources to students and teachers. The proliferation of freely available, quality-assured open education resources represents a key means to upskill teachers, develop discipline-based content knowledge and provide students with access to high quality, contemporary instruction. As reported by the 2014 review, current “e-learning” practices do not extend beyond computer drill and instruction with a focus on memorisation.

Kazakhstan should expand its use of technology-enabled learning and distance education methods (in particular e-learning): at present, distance-learning often seems to take a traditional approach of students completing paper assignments and sending them back for assessment. Particular attention should be given to developing e-learning support for teachers, as well as resources that teachers can integrate into their teaching. Centrally supported repositories of digital learning assets that are curated, and that are accompanied by teachers’ guides, would provide a sustainable approach to upskilling rural teachers and enriching the curriculum. However, if digital resources are to be used effectively, then issues associated with poor access, lack of speed, and low connectivity at school and home have to be addressed.

Admission to higher education

As described above, the Unified National Test is a high-stakes examination that regulates not just admission to university but also access to state student grants. The UNT was introduced to address the risks of corruption endemic in the previous system of individual university admissions systems. However, it was frequently reported to the OECD review team that many students now focus almost exclusively on preparing for this test during their final two years of secondary school. They may strategise and look for opportunities to “play the system” – losing valuable learning time at secondary school as they focus on achieving high scores on the UNT. Moreover, it was reported to the review team that students sometimes choose courses on the basis of the availability of grants rather than on the basis of interest, passion or talent.

Coaching for the UNT is a common practice. While in principle there is nothing wrong with tutoring, in this case it has important implications for equity. Not all families are financially able to afford to pay for coaching and tutoring. The review team heard that students and families from urban areas spend more on education, including on private tutoring, than rural families. UNT preparation materials are available for sale to the public, but students must be able to afford to buy them, and they are unlikely to prepare a candidate to the same level as private or group tutoring. Staff of the National Testing Center reported that the Center offers free preparatory sessions for students. Trial testing is also available, but while helpful, these services are once again unlikely to match the benefits of private tutoring.

Redevelopment of the test to a more open UNT would help minimise the effect of coaching and teaching to the test, and thus create a fairer and more equitable playing field. The Ministry of Education’s proposed changes to the UNT that were reported to the OECD review team – and which include the use of more open-ended questions, essays and a move towards multiple-choice questions that assess higher-order thinking skills – would likely contribute to a more credible and valid instrument. The National Testing Center also told the review team that they anticipate the UNT will become completely computer-based and have the capacity to allow re-testing within the year following completion of year 11.

It has been previously reported (OECD, 2014b) that Kazakhstan intended to develop separate school leaving and university entry tests starting in 2015, but the OECD review team did not hear any further detail about this. Because of the effect of high stakes exams on the behaviour and learning of students, it is important that any high-stakes exam (such as university entrance exams) assess the types of thinking and skills that a student needs to be competitive in fast-changing modern economies and societies. If Kazakhstan moves, as reported to the review team, toward the introduction of the twelfth year of schooling, it could take that opportunity to introduce a school-leaving exam that is distinct from the separate university entrance exam. In any case, Kazakhstan should seek to implement a more valid, reliable assessment that more effectively regulates university entrance and that is more fair for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Although improvements to standardised testing would be a positive step, it would be desirable to supplement testing with alternative entry schemes that recognise and compensate for disadvantage and unequal schooling conditions (see Box 3.5). Such schemes might include the provision of bonus points to address disadvantage caused by rural or remote school location; alternative testing to select students from particular disadvantaged groups or locations; or recommendation schemes that identify students with academic potential who have experienced adversity during their school years. Of course, such approaches would need to include rigorous checks and balances to ensure fairness and prevent corruption. There are examples of such approaches in other countries, and there is an urgent need in Kazakhstan to implement an entry scheme that actively addresses systemic disadvantage and recognises academic potential (World Bank, 2012).

The complex test and alternate pathways to higher education

Technical and Vocational Education (VET) has a key role to play in providing the viable educational pathways and specialist training that countries need for sustainable economic development. In 2014, approximately one in every six Kazakhstanis aged 14-24 was enrolled in technical and vocational education institutions. However, rates of enrolment vary substantially by region. With only 20% of VET institutions located in rural areas, the access of rural youth to technical and vocational education is severely restricted (MESRK, 2014).

Barriers to VET access have negative consequences for their employment prospects, and are an important impediment to social and economic development. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of VET graduates decreased by more than 15% (Álvarez-Galván, 2014). Part of the challenge is that post-secondary VET in Kazakhstan has traditionally been seen as a fallback for young people who have not completed compulsory education, or who have been unsuccessful in general or higher education. The role of post-secondary VET in the education system remains somewhat unclear, and would benefit from being positioned as a stronger and more prestigious higher-level vocational option (Álvarez-Galván, 2014).

The Complex Test (CT) is the mechanism that Kazakhstan uses for managing admission to higher education, as well as eligibility for state grants for people who failed the UNT on their first attempt; for graduates of VET; and for school leavers who were not able to complete their studies or who studied in foreign schools. A student who fails the UNT must wait until the following year to attempt the CT.

The number of students sitting the Complex Test rose from 29 141 in 2011 to 78 248 in 2015. The success rate on the CT is generally low because of the reported difficulty of the test, and because most students are poorly prepared for it. In 2015, substantially fewer than half of the candidates who sat the CT scored a passing grade (NCESE, 2014). Like the UNT, the CT would benefit from an overhaul that makes it into a more meaningful assessment of higher-order thinking and skills, and better able to measure a range and depth of practical and theoretical knowledge.

The CT is a particularly important pathway into higher education for students with VET qualifications who wish to transfer into higher education. Higher education currently provides little recognition or credit transfer for students who have studied at VET colleges, so they must achieve success on the CT to enter higher education institutions. Under a former arrangement, applicants from VET who were prepared to fund their own tuition could be admitted on the basis of an interview at the higher education institution at which they wished to study; when they wished to study in an area closely related to their VET studies, they could be admitted to the second year of the undergraduate degree programme. There do not appear to be any substantial benefits from the closure of this pathway, which (according to reports make to the OECD review team) seems to have functioned effectively as a viable route from VET to university study.

The OECD review team was not able to locate any data that could conclusively show whether or not the introduction of the CT requirement has had any impact on the rates of transfer to higher education. Nevertheless, it is clear that its implementation has raised an additional barrier to higher education participation and that it sends a message which undervalues technical education. The CT itself needs reform. At the same time, development of alternative admission schemes would create a more equitable environment for VET students – and also allow individuals who are older or have missed out on education in some way, to demonstrate their potential and thus gain admission to higher education.

In summary, Kazakhstan should explore ways to promote expanded and systematised recognition of VET qualifications in higher education; the recognition and formalisation of credit transfer; and, in particular, it should consider the removal of the requirement that students sit the CT when they are already successful graduates of a relevant or similar VET course. To this end, more could be done to encourage higher education and VET institutions to develop partnerships across sectors and regions, and to put in place articulation agreements that facilitate transfer between institutions and sectors.

Financial aid

The absence of needs-based financial aid is a major barrier to access to higher education in Kazakhstan. Students primarily pay for their education through personal funds and state grants. However, state grants only provide funding for around one-quarter of higher education students.

Grants

As Chapters 2 and 6 also discuss, Kazakhstan’s state grants are a voucher-type system. Funds for higher education places are allocated to the recipient (the student), rather than the supplier of education services (the institution). The state contribution to higher education in Kazakhstan is low: in 2013 public expenditures on higher education in Kazakhstan were just 0.3% of GDP (NCESE, 2014). There is thus a heavy reliance on private sources of funding to support higher education.

In 2014, an estimated 73% of Kazakh higher education students funded their participation in higher education using their own or family funds (see Figure 3.5) (MNERK, 2014-2015). Meanwhile, tuition rates have increased at a faster rate than income levels across the population (Nazarbayev University School of Graduation, 2014). Institutions are required to ensure that the tuition levels do not fall below those of the state education grant. This has a perverse effect: the state cannot increase public funding of higher education without raising new affordability challenges for students who must pay for their studies.

Minimum grant/tuition fee levels are specified by the relevant ministry, and vary somewhat across institutions and disciplines. Typical tuition levels at public institutions range from roughly KZT 300 000 to KZT 700 000 or roughly USD 900 to USD 2 000 at mid-2016 conversion rates. Some private institutions charge as much as three times the upper end of that scale, though.

Free higher education is available on a competitive basis only when the individual is participating for the first time at a particular level. Public educational grants give selected students access to the institution of their choice, and the major share of grants are allocated to state education institutions.

In order to regulate the training of specialists, the state (through the MESRK) draws up an order each year, to fund the number of places required to educate specialists in areas the state determines to be in demand. Thus in certain fields, such as law, as few as one in ten bachelor-level students studies on a state grant. In other fields, such as engineering and technology, roughly six in ten students hold a grant – and in agricultural sciences (a small field of study), as many as eight in ten do (data provided by the JSC Information-Analytic Center based on a survey of higher education institutions).

Figure 3.5. Sources of funding for higher education of higher education in Kazakhstan

Sources: Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Committee on Statistics (MNERK) (2014-2015), www.stat.gov.kz.

Special grant set-asides have been introduced for students from a range of backgrounds: rural students; those in priority social and economic disciplines; Kazakh ethnic minorities; Kazakhs who are citizens of another country; students with a disability; and orphans and children without parental support. In the case of equal scores on the UNT and CT, orphans and children who need support are given preferential treatment.

Planning is reportedly underway for the development of new special programmes to provide additional access to higher education for students from rural areas and low-income families; planning for measures like this, that somewhat counterbalance the equity effects of the UNT, should be accelerated. Such measures need to be complemented, though, by approaches designed to improve the quality of teaching and schooling in rural and regional areas.

The government’s “Serpin 2050” educational grant programme began in 2014 and currently supports education at seven higher education institutions (with plans to expand this number). Serpin provides incentives for student mobility which are designed to reduce unemployment in the southern regions (which have a young, growing and often poorer population), and to address skills and labour shortages in certain western, eastern and northern regions. Serpin’s success will depend on the willingness of students from the South to remain, over the longer term, in the areas to which they move for their studies. As Serpin is quite new, its success remains to be seen. The OECD review team was not able to determine whether the policy model behind the programme has adequately estimated the long-term willingness of Kazakhstanis to resettle in other parts of the country.

Other financial supports

To promote lifelong learning, the government has created incentive schemes for employers to provide support for employees who want to study at higher education level. This involves companies developing their own educational and training programmes. These social partnership arrangements seem to be slow to develop. As reported by faculty and employer groups to whom the OECD review team spoke, there appears to be either a lack of trust between institutions and employers or a lack of understanding of each other’s perspectives. In some countries, programmes such as these have had a substantial positive effect on participation in higher education, particularly in encouraging older learners to engage in study. Approaches have included tax breaks for employers who support staff in formal study, and formal educational collaborations between industry and universities.

In developed countries such as the United States and Australia, for instance, there are a range of emerging partnerships in which universities work with employers to develop specialised qualifications for staff. For example IBM has partnered with 28 universities and business schools to develop a curriculum on big data. In Australia, the financial services firm AMP and Griffith University have collaborated to create university-industry postgraduate degrees that combine theoretical coursework with experience as a financial adviser (Griffith University, 2016).

Schemes to encourage participation

While financial barriers to participation are substantial, the influence of attitude and aspirations cannot be underestimated. Educational inequity has become entrenched in Kazakhstan. The systemic impediments of lower quality, and less well-resourced schooling for rural and low SES students have a direct effect by limiting opportunities for academic achievement. These impediments also have reduced individuals’ opportunity to develop a mindset that understands the potential benefits of higher education.

The OECD review team observed very little systematic attempt in Kazakhstan to address this issue of low aspirations. It does not help that the current method of managing admission to higher education fails to recognise or address adversity or disadvantage in a young person’s life. There are few if any enabling and bridging courses that might allow students to address gaps in their knowledge and develop knowledge and skills that are a pre-requisite for their course of study.

The team also observed few examples of study and learning skills support available for students at higher education institutions, and students with whom the team spoke noted that there was little formal provision of study support. The lack of additional support schemes can only further reduce the educational achievement of young Kazakhstanis.

Flexible study

The dominant approach to higher education is through full-time study. This can discourage participation of students from disadvantaged and low SES backgrounds who may, for instance, not be able to pay the “opportunity cost” of foregone wages if they engage in full-time study.

Kazakhstan’s state classification of full-time, part-time and evening, distance education and external studies does not align with the definitions applied to such terms outside the country. In Kazakhstan, “part-time education” is intensive training of around one month per year followed by an examination; school leavers are excluded from this option. Enrolments in this form of study have fallen sharply over the last several years.

In many other countries, the concept of part-time study involves a student carrying a subject load that is less than that required to complete a qualification in the minimum period of time. Part-time study may be offered by classes in the evenings, weekend study and intensive periods of study often over a summer. Alternatively, students may simply carry a lighter subject load. These options all provide a student with opportunity to balance university study with work or family commitments. However, not all countries recognise part-time study, and there is no universal definition. Many government policies apply different definitions of part- or full-time study for the purposes of funding decisions.

Initiatives that offer increased opportunities for Kazakhstani students to study part-time could increase the accessibility of higher education. These might be enabled by new technologies, in the form of open universities for example (Box 3.6), but that does not necessarily have to be the case. Changes to the funding of higher education places (including financial aid initiatives for part-time study) could also facilitate increased levels of participation in higher education by students from disadvantaged and low SES backgrounds.

The availability of data for policy purposes

To design and implement approaches that address inequalities in access to higher education, policy makers first need good data and information on these inequalities. However, given the difficulties that the OECD review team had in obtaining reliable data that it required for this chapter’s analysis, it appears that Kazakhstan is not systematically tracking, monitoring and analysing the performance of students on the basis of their geographic and socio-economic backgrounds. It is not following students through primary and secondary education, and into any post-secondary studies they may engage in. Policy makers thus lack reliable analysis of the higher education participation and completion rates of students from low SES or disadvantaged backgrounds, and of the factors that contribute to these outcomes. This represents a major limitation on the business intelligence of the higher education system and of the education system more generally. It is enough, in itself, to substantially hinder efforts to enhance access and equity.