Chapter 4 - Analysis of Results

The survey and interviews were organized in order to find the root of this issue, the reasons people are used to giving and taking bribes and consider it as normal action, now we are taking into consideration not only corruption within education (giving bribes on the roads or buying driving license are considered like the easiest way to get licenses than having driving exams). The main aim of the research paper was to find the real causes of corruption in this sector in the state. Although the government of Kazakhstan has been taking measures in order to reduce the rate of corruption in education sector, this research project has found some more feasible solutions to prevent corruption, with a help of survey results and interviews which were taken from various people.

According to the survey results, there are three main causes which promote corruption within education. Firstly, the government has not taken more strict and productive measures to struggle against it. In other words, in spite of the various agencies struggling against corruption, the Kazakhstani government does not have its own proper strategy for fighting against corruption as in European countries or in China. Secondly, students’ and their parents’ superficial attitude towards the quality of education promote teachers’ interest to taking bribes openly. Moreover, today the tendency of buying grades is very popular and “cool”. Thirdly, some teachers from public universities have to take bribes because of the lack of money. Teachers of public universities get low salaries. This issue also concerns the obligations and competency of the government, which should increase teachers’ salaries in order to avoid corruption. As for the other causes, they were not counted as the major factors.

This research paper focuses on student’s answers for the survey about their attitude towards corruption. As was mentioned above (in the Description of Results), eight students out of ten in public universities are engaged with giving bribes to buy grades. In other words, according to field research, the level of corrupt teachers and students in private universities is much lower than in public ones. All these facts are related to teachers’ low salaries in those universities which are on the state maintenance. This factor might be counted as the main reason. But on the other hand, it also concerns students who are ready to buy grades or the diplomas to graduate universities. Such students’ negligent attitude towards study and their further professional activity promotes teachers’ interests to find additional incomes. Certainly, if students would be unapproachable in such situations, teachers could not force students to pay. However, frequently there are such cases when teachers specially reduce points to extort money from students. A participant Sholpan Kusshibekova, a 2^nd year student at a public female pedagogical university, has told some stories (along with her written answers for the questions which were distributed at the end of February), when teachers reduce the points for the absences (at that time Sholpan missed some classes due to serious health problems) and tried to made her pay money in order to get a high grade. But, the student did not have five thousand tenge (which were asked by that teacher from public university) and got an unfair grade of “C”. As a result, Sholpan lost her scholarship in that university.

As for the solution, this student suggests that the university administrations should pay attention to the students’ community and annually distribute to their students questionnaires which would consist of some private questions like which teachers are involved in corruption or which students buy grades, and other situations indirectly concerning corruption. For example, when teachers persuade students to buy his books (some research works) and say that if a students do not buy this book, then he will not give him a good mark, or the other case is when teachers ask students to help him to repair his house or ask to buy expensive perfumes. And all the answers of students should be anonymous. Sholpan is convinced that it will also contribute to the prevention of corruption within education.

Another participant, Alimbayeva, who teaches at the private Kazakh University of International Relations and World Languages, stated that teachers are not guilty for the tendency of buying diplomas, grades and research works among students. She claimed that students from rich and authoritative families force young and “green” teachers to give them the answers for the exams and other works, because, these teachers are afraid to lose their jobs at universities. In this situation, there has appeared the other survival choice. “If you do not want to lose your job, you have an alternative to take bribes and graduate unqualified alumni.” But in the first situation your conscience remains pure, and in the second case you will spoil that student and in the future he will not be useful for society with a false diploma and bought knowledge. Furthermore, the most significant contribution which can be made by those teachers in such situations is just to leave their job and to find a fair job, because, in this case at least one group of students do not have any opportunities to give bribes.

Furthermore, all of the corrupt students abuse of giving bribes, because they are sure of their happy future life under their “parents’ wings”. This is the other indicator of the branches of corruption. It is called nepotism. From the ancient times, Kazakh people are used to helping to their relatives and siblings. If some of the members from the family take the high position in the government or in the other sector, it means that all of his relatives and friends work there too. There is ever one sarcastic joke about Kazakh people’s ethics “Kazakh Boss will never discharge from office his lazy and unqualified workers, because they should help and take care of their siblings and relatives”. Of course, it sounds ridiculous and sad, especially when you hear that from representatives of other nations, it hurts my pride. But on the other hand, we ourselves are guilty that other nations perceive us so. Visitors to Kazakhstan always are shocked when they hear stories of their friends and acquaintances about their successful machinations with giving bribes to the teachers or buying diplomas from the universities. Immediately, there is a question then, why do they study? In every country the quality of the education and of the professionalism are considered as the most important thing in people’s life. If it is true, there is a doubt whether Kazakhstan will ever become a well-developed country, if both teachers and students do not change their attitude towards obtaining knowledge. Students by giving bribes to teachers and paying for their education, waste double sum of their parents’ money.

Talking about who paid how much money for the grades or diplomas (just like talks about cars and houses) is not considered to be shameful. On the contrary, buying grades has become an object of showing off. However, people do not want to give any explanations to what is going on at their universities. Students can easily tell you for which price they have bought their grades, but never tell you who takes bribes or students are for getting a fake knowledge. While they were busy with thinking of how to pay money for the grades or how to find the ways to escape final exams, they have not ever thought about the bad consequences of their actions. I have not yet met such students at KIMEP, but some of my friends who study at public universities always show off their bought high grades.

The main problem of the society is that they consider corruption as a normal phenomenon. Nobody is interested in some scandalous facts of corrupt teachers or students, or they do not even care about it. People prefer to leave it as it is. To be honest, the best measure could be to make TV programs about corruption within education with invited competent jurists, psychologists, some respected public figures or even famous actors and singers who would give some pieces of advice about preventing corruption. If people will see and hear that from TV programs it might awake their mind and indignations against corruption within education. They should know that getting knowledge is the basis of personal development of a mankind and students should clarify their real goal, to get a fake knowledge or to be qualified professional. The other situation is when, people even if they know about the facts of corruption at their educational establishments, they do not care about it at all. Moreover, if any person find out about the facts and wants to tell people, the Administration or people from “above” make them to keep silence and disappear from the university (the case of Adilbekov).

While I was doing Field Research, I had a strange experience. The administration of Kazakh National Pedagogical University (a public one) did not want to give me any information about the teacher who worked there before. Actually, I have a suspicion that this teacher (Sagdat Adilbekov) was discharged from the university because of his honesty. Adilbokov about four months ago invited the Press and told about the mess which happening in that university; particularly he had listed all corrupt the teachers at the university and publicly exposed unqualified professors’. After that case, he does not teach there anymore. If people were involved in preventing corruption together, not only individual people results would be more significant. This person was not even supported and protected by the government and society. Nobody knows where he is and what he does. Maybe, after this case, all the other teachers who are against corruption have become afraid of openly talking to the Press and people. But what about the freedom of the speech and the fact that people have a right to know what is happening.

As for the other case, according to Kim’s answers, it was obvious that Kim was for the strict teaching methods of Soviet Union times. Moreover, he suggested to University Administration selecting teachers when they apply for a job to a certain university. Besides, he holds up as an example the Japanese people, and their mentality, about their conscientiousness and diligence. In addition, he said “Especially corruption in the education sector is the most dangerous and harmful phenomenon in the state because a strong state needs highly-qualified professionals in all spheres”. Kim is very disappointed especially with young teachers, who are unqualified employees. Sahlberg who worked with a number of governments in Europe and Central Asia to help them improve education policies says “Teachers who accept bribery show a wrong example to those who are not involved in corruption.” (2010, p.4) Moreover, Rumyantseva (she works at the College of Vanderbilt University) asserts “Flourishing of educational corruption has a negative impact on society. It undermines public trust in higher education, exacerbates the quality of education, prepares unqualified young professionals, and teaches them distorted values and culture” (2005, p.83).

Concerning the limitations, of course, we cannot absolutely be sure that the results of the survey and interviews match with the answers of all other citizens. But still, according to the survey results, I came to the conclusion that corruption within education might not be stopped until the government takes very cruel measures against corrupt people and increases the salaries of teachers from public universities, of course, together with society which will change their attitude to the corruption and nepotism. Still delusion and wrong representations about the bad consequences of involvement in corruption and its influences on their future lives, professional and successful careers slows down the corruption preventing process. This project can go further and deeper if I had more opportunities to talk to professionals from several NGOs and surveyed all of the students from each university in Almaty. The expectations and results might be more productive and concrete.

Date: 2016-01-03; view: 701