“On behalf of the National Association, I have appealed to [Liepājas] mayor Gunāras Ansiņas and the head of the Education Committee Jānis Vilnīš to cancel the events,” the deputy says on Twitter.
In the submission, the opposition MP expressed his confusion about organizing the Olympics, considering that schools are switching to teaching only in Latvian, “stopping the long-standing division of society by nationality”. It is also planned to abandon the study of Russian as a second foreign language.
The first stage of the Russian language Olympiad in Liepāja schools is planned from November 25 to November 29.
In the Liepāja Education Administration, the LETA agency explains the holding of the Russian language Olympiad by the fact that this subject is taught in accordance with the state standard of Primary and General Secondary Education. At the same time, participation in the Olympics is not mandatory.
“We understand the sensitivity and agitation of this issue, but it is about the language as such,” said Renāte Melķke, the representative of the administration.
The municipality organizes the Olympiad with the aim of promoting creative and cognitive activities and identifying talented students. This school year, the theme of the Olympiad was “Knowledge of languages is the path to wisdom”. The management stated that the content of the Olympiad is oriented towards students’ understanding of the values of society, European culture and the guidelines of the European Union, as well as forming a positive attitude of students towards learning a foreign language. Olympiad tasks will be developed by methodical teachers in the course of their direct work duties.
The municipality will have to find the necessary funding for hosting the Olympics in its own budget. The administration did not answer how much it will cost, stating that it will not involve additional costs, “as much as sheets of paper for students”.
The Russian Language Olympiad is not organized, supported or financed by the state this year, LETA agency learned from the State Educational Content Center (VISC). Accordingly, the Russian language Olympiad will not take place at the regional and national level.
Olympiads in this subject can be held only at the school level, if a municipality shows initiative. VISC does not have information on whether the Russian language Olympiad is held in any other municipality.
Interview with Dr. Anna Balode: Language Policy and Education in Latvia
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome, Dr. Balode, and thank you for joining us today. There’s a lot of discussion regarding the upcoming Russian Language Olympiad in Liepāja, especially in light of Latvia’s recent shift towards teaching only in Latvian. Can you help us understand the significance of this event in the current educational climate?
Dr. Anna Balode (AB): Thank you for having me! The situation is quite complex. The Russian Language Olympiad is set against the backdrop of a significant policy shift in Latvia, where the government is moving towards a monolingual education system that prioritizes Latvian. This change aims to foster unity and reduce societal division along national lines.
TNE: Indeed, it seems counterintuitive to hold a Russian language event when the state is emphasizing Latvian. What are the potential implications of continuing with the Olympiad during this transitional phase?
AB: The implications are multifold. On one hand, the Olympiad can be seen as a celebration of linguistic diversity, providing a platform for students who have been educated in bilingual environments. However, it also risks alienating students who are adjusting to this new educational directive. The event raises questions about inclusivity, identity, and the future of Russian-speaking students in a predominantly Latvian educational landscape.
TNE: That’s an important point. The opposition MP’s appeal to the mayor and the Education Committee highlights concerns about the appropriateness of the event. How do you see the role of political discourse in shaping educational policies in this matter?
AB: Political discourse plays a crucial role. The tensions surrounding language education in Latvia often reflect deeper societal divides. The opposition’s confusion over holding the Olympiad stems from this shift in policy, where Russian is losing its status as a second foreign language. It raises the broader issue of how governance and education can either bridge or deepen divisions within society.
TNE: Speaking of societal divides, the move to abandon the study of Russian as a second foreign language has sparked considerable debate. What are the broader implications for social cohesion in Latvia?
AB: Abandoning Russian could exacerbate feelings of disenfranchisement among Russian-speaking communities, which could lead to social fragmentation. Education is a vital tool for integration; by limiting language options, we may unintentionally create barriers instead of bridges. It’s crucial for the government to find a balance that acknowledges the historical and cultural significance of the Russian language for many citizens.
TNE: You mentioned earlier that participation in the Olympiad is not mandatory. What does this mean for students who choose to participate or not in this context of rising nationalism and identity?
AB: This non-mandatory aspect is important as it allows for choice, which can empower students. However, it could also put pressure on them to conform to societal expectations based on their language background. Those who choose to participate may see it as an opportunity to embrace their heritage, while others may feel compelled to distance themselves from a language that could be viewed as politically charged in the current climate.
TNE: It certainly seems to be a delicate balance to strike. As an expert in the field, what would you recommend as a way forward in terms of language policy and education in Latvia?
AB: I believe that open dialogues among stakeholders—educators, politicians, and community members—are essential. Policymakers should engage with those affected by language policies to co-create solutions that respect linguistic diversity while promoting national cohesion. Additionally, offering additional resources for students transitioning to a monolingual system could ease the adjustment process.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Balode, for your insights on this pressing issue. It’s clear that navigating language policy in education requires sensitivity and a commitment to inclusivity.
AB: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important topics. It’s vital that we remain engaged in conversations that affect our communities’ cohesion and future.
TNE: Absolutely! We appreciate your time today, and we’re looking forward to seeing how this situation evolves in the coming months.