navreme - knowledge development

· evaluation
· research
· training

portfolio | evaluation

"Integration of the Crimean Deportees into Ukrainian Society"

Educational Component

0 Abstract and Key Words
1 Executive Summary and Recommendations
2 Background
3 Education
4 Integration
5 Spin-Off?
Annexes:
I Logical Framework Matrix
II Evaluation Brief
III Mission and Meetings
IV References and Bibliography

Kyiv/Simferopol/Vienna - 12 April 2001

Abstract:
This evaluation report of the Crimean Integration Programme confirms that most of the programme objectives have been achieved, or even over-achieved. The Programme substantially fostered the integration process of former deportees, in particular the Crimean Tatar people, in education, media and NGO development.
Suggestions for a second programming phase include an educational focus on regions and localities of particular need, secondary education, or training for school administrators. Concerning integration in Crimea, it is recommended to be also sensitive to the perceptions in (Russian-speaking) majority population, and develop projects which spill-over results to other groups under de-ethnicised criteria.
A programme spin-off, in the view of the evaluators, is in principle realistic, but needs a thorough upgrading of capacities. In order to allow for timely preparation and a smooth transition, a final decision should be taken soon, and a 5-year transition period to independence be agreed.

Verbatim Quotes
"Without IRF's Integration Programme we would still be in 1990!" (Crimean Tartar teacher)

"For rebirth of our culture, education is indispensable - everything else is less important" (Crimean Tatar leader)

"The Integration Programme provided us with the first opportunity to realise and spread our ideas for societal groups" (educational NGO leader)

"The question of integration into Ukrainian society is decided by the content, quality and action within the educational system" (school headmaster)

1 Executive Summary and Recommendations

A Education Component
· Rebirth of Crimean Tartar Language and Education: extremely well received, and implemented;
· Successful in terms of results, empowerment and motivation. Completion in parts necessary, targeting of poorest settlements/schools, and regions not yet touched by support programmes;
· Sunday Schools and other support for other ethnic minorities provided an important stimulation for their activity, seems to have helped a now alive momentum of re-discovering multiple ethnicity and cultures in Crimea - but are probably sustainable without further IRF support;
· Over-all Education Reform, however, is not far advanced in terms of state-of-the-art educational content, methods and results (e.g. interactive teaching, student-centred learning, focus on core competencies, training for problem-solving and teamwork) - this is also true for most of the newly produced textbooks. Educational management, initiative, and competence are also lacking. Content-wise, the work on "Education for Democratic Citizenship" by the Council of Europe may prove to be useful. Concerning the specific importance of History Books, precious experience has been gathered in the Stability Pact.
· Appropriate processes and procedures for programme selection were set up and observed; division of decision-making, financial and implementing competencies avoid conflicts of interest; successful implementation of +/- 250 micro projects with high impact and sustainability; the Programme's management was a key factor for success;

Results and Successes
· Unique support was given to the re-birth of Crimean Tatar language and education (textbooks, dictionaries, teaching materials).
· A notable success factor was the maintenance of an intensive relationships with actors and constituencies, including political sensitivity and high diplomatic skills.

B Integration Process
· Contrary to fears, by supporting integration, no segregation, no assimilation of the Crimean-Tatar people to take place. The programme contributed to a net improvement of the situation if compared to 1990 or 1995, or to other regions with ethnically mixed populations. Completion of some project strands is desirable (Crimean Tartar language not supported by anybody else); In future, it may be necessary to target in particular poor regions and settlements
· Some information deficits amongst key stakeholders, and in particular the majority population appeared: in future, expanding information on project aims, constraints and objectives, extending the benefit to other societal groups (e.g. Russian-speaking majority), and "cascading" - like already happening in Bahchisaraj - to other schools, kindergartens, councils and groups could be picked up in the second phase as a conditionality

Results and Successes
· Micro-grants guaranteed involvement of most possible groups; Positive effect on motivation, initiative, and self-organisation of educational actors;
· Mobilisation and Involvement of local authorities took place; Production of CD on multi-cultural Crimea as important product; Focus on "Problem-solving" was very successful, and resulted in transfer of results to other NGOs and schools.

C Spin-Off Procedure?
· Programme proved to have a rising learning curve, but project management capacity needs strengthening for 2nd phase (more staff in Crimea to address risk of one person only); Public Relations: networking, donor information, separate web-site necessary; Board: reinforce Crimean (and Tartar) presence, while maintaining high-level Kyiv-based "external" voices;
· Potential for independence exists, however, politically sensitive programme and regional focus may require a longer transition (3 -> 5 years?); any decision should be taken soon to allow for preparation as of now, but with fixed instalments at the beginning;
· Increasing the future Foundation's attractiveness for other donors will be indispensable: transparent standard accounting and auditing procedures, E.g. "Public voluntary organisation" (PVO-status in USA) for USAID funding

D Answers and Recommendations
The following key questions were asked in the Evaluation Brief by IEP and OSI, and are further elaborated in the main text:
1. Has the Program achieved its original goals, stated in the original program design, through its activities (textbook publishing, school equipment, teacher's training, etc)?
Programme achieved its goals, and partly surpassed expectations due to a rising learning curve. Some results are now being mainstreamed, although need for support continues to exist.
2. Does the Integration Program (educational component) work towards integration into Ukrainian society, and towards social cohesion in a multicultural region?
Integration was helped by the programme, by providing emergency help for, and stimulating naissance of, grass-root activities; contribution to social cohesion was less observable, although it took place at the ground in some projects (e.g. collaboration with other ethnic groups and local administrations).
3. What should be left or changed in the Program strategy to answer the current situation trends?
"De-ethnicising" integration, and professionalising education development and management should dominate a second phase; first phase successes such as unique contributions, flexibility, and practice relevance to be maintained (see also Chapter 5 on Spin-Off).
4. What policies and measures are needed in the context of the local situation and aimed at reaching equal opportunities in education for repatriates?
Building upon successful interaction and collaboration with educational authorities to democratise the education system itself, and targeting of poorest areas and schools. Solid education in their own language as a means to reinforce identity should be coupled with enhancing opportunities to continue education in the national and regional education institutions (see also Chapter 4 on Integration).

Moreover,
· It is advisable to keep the programme flexible, by not aiming at "final solutions" of integration, but step-by-step improvement. Opposed or contrasting visions of future developments need not lead to stalemate blockings. Intermediate agreements, with the possibility of revision and redirection should help to generate partial successes which are perceived as improvement by all parties involved. Integration is to be see as a ongoing process, not as a - current or eventual - situation.
· At the level of pre-school education, pilot models have been established, and Programme support may shift to the dissemination and transfer of such activities to other localities.
· Concerning primary education, the foundations have been laid for a continuation of provision in the Crimean Tatar language, and Programme support in a second phase may focus in particular on schools in remote areas in particularly poor conditions (one example is the school in the settlement of Viktorovska off Bahchisaraj).
· Secondary education received less priority, and may become a focus of a second programming phase. While the creation of (linguistically) separate education systems should be avoided, language provision should cover majority and minority schools on a reciprocal basis.
· In the sphere of Higher Education, the Industrial-Pedagogical Institute has developed into a strong and capable institution, which also attracts support from the government. Less development, and thus more need of support, to help general education development could be observed at the Crimean Tatar department of the Tauric University. Specific Higher Education provision for former deportees is not a priority objective (it can be partly covered by universities outside Crimea, and also in Crimea seems to develop well), if not serving the needs and goals of primary and secondary education (focus on teacher training and modern learning methods).
· Training and vocational education have not been targeted in the first programme phase, and it may be worthwhile to investigate how a second programme phase could initiate the development and provision of specific vocational skills adapt for the situation of Crimean Tatars and other minorities on a pilot basis. Such activity would need to be preceded by an analysis of the needs and opportunities in the Crimean labour market.
· Further areas which seem to be in serious need for development and reform are (as in most transition economies) refer to the field of management of education. A list of possible project themes can be found in the report.
· "De-ethnicising" the integration issue in general is necessary, for the benefit of reinforcing professional, organisational, social identities. Programmes like CIP should - if at all possible - try to avoid reinforcing existing "ethnic cleavages". Also, the (although wrong) perception of "privileged groups" being created by the Programme, should be anticipated by better information, and partial inclusion of the majority population into project benefits (see also Chapter 4).