The world has many differing views on a variety of things, ranging from asking for a loan to behaving properly in a household. However, one of the most diversifying factors in many existing cultures around the world is the approach to learning. No matter what happens in any region or under any government, every person in the world must engage in learning in order to survive. Most countries in the world accomplish this goal by making formal school systems, institutions in which children leave home to learn critical knowledge and social skills in a public environment. However, these systems in different countries vary in ideals, just as countries vary themselves through physical differences. The Russian School System, just like aspects of the Russian culture itself, is unknown to westerners here in the United States due to the fact that most U.S. citizens do not travel to Russia. The best way to understand the cultural framework of the Russian School System and understand the underlying influences of their social practices is to analyze the culture with basic concepts of intercultural communication. Hofstede, Hall, and Schwarz provide a wide array of viewpoints to analyze the Russian culture and point out its distinct characteristics that we as foreigners may be oblivious to understanding. Thus there are many fascinating details and differences that Americans, and westerners in general, can learn about that they aren’t even aware of.

​

The Russian School System begins with the First Bell and Last Bell Ceremonies, indicating a formal need to celebrate the start of a child’s learning path and the end of a student’s schooltime career. The most important part of the First Bell Ceremony, when fresh students are introduced to their eleven year curriculum, is where teachers and current students are all present to celebrate the event (Hays). This places an emphasis on how important education is, and creates a preface that the school environment is very formal with the existence of such ceremonies. In regards to formality itself, one of the most important aspects of thriving in the Russian School System is behavior. Exhibiting good behavior is very important in Russian culture, which often leads to children learning simple rules early on in their childhood. One of such rules involves the way students create written work in school. Russian students are required to write specifically with fountain pens, which are harder than their modern ballpoint counterparts, because ballpoint pens often create blots, which are intolerable and seen as disrespectful in the Russian society (Popova, 2024). The element of using a fountain pen in class is drilled into Russian children at a young age, just like the act of placing one’s hand on their heart during a national anthem. It is a sign of respect, thus using any kind of utensil that creates blots or disrupts the flow of written speech would send nonverbal messages of disrespect, whether disrespect is intended or not. To be afraid of an accidental blob of ink demonstrates that presentation and respect is demonstrated through small, miniscule gestures. Such a focus on perfection is crucial to the formation of proper etiquette in society, which is obviously backed up in Russian schools. The enforcement of fountain pen usage indicates a high uncertainty avoidance, which is demonstrated by the lack of options or dissent involving these writing utensils in the Russian classroom. The fact that fountain pens are mandated for youth immediately engrains the fact that a classroom is a formal environment, which rapidly forms the nonverbal aspect of the environment influencing communication.

​

A second aspect of Russian schooling that is paramount is the fact that there are codes of conduct expected to be followed by both students and teachers. First and foremost, the most important factor to consider is that the management of schools is overseen directly by the government, which means whomever is in power can force teachers to alter their curriculums to enforce certain standards (Vick, 2024). This was seen during the Soviet times, and in many cases in the present day. The government’s control over the school system is a profound example of high power distance according to Hofstede, underlining that there is an emphasis on distinguishing higher and lower positions. According to Schwartz’ Taxonomy, this act of control also falls under two other dimensions. The influence over the school system indicates that there is a clearly established hierarchy and inequality that is present in Russian society, which demonstrates a lack of egalitarian practice and a reliance on a top to bottom societal structure. This would have Russia classified in the linearity concept of the social relations value orientation due to the absolute need to maintain the hierarchy and have people defer to higher authorities. The concept of hierarchy is learned and understood at a young age, which instills obedience to the status quo. Having done such a thing, the Russian government has also engaged in mastery on the social level with the successful integration of such policies. Schools in Russia often require their students to wear uniforms, which was a practice widely used in the Soviet era. The uniforms had to be purchased at the expense of the student, and refusal to wear a uniform to school meant that a student would have to be sent home (Popova, 2024). Back in the Soviet times, Russia used to forbid any attempt at individuality because they wanted their students to represent an equal society. This practice emphasizes collectivism because every student is required to do their part by purchasing their school uniforms with their own money. This idea pushes forward the fact that societies can operate collectively so long as everyone does their part and contributes their fair share. The fact that the reprimand for not wearing a school uniform results in being sent home immediately establishes an in-group and out-group between those who attend school religiously and those who don’t, which aligns with the high context view of Hall’s Taxonomy. Wearing makeup, earrings, or any sort of flashy clothing other than the school uniform used to result in being scolded in front of the teacher or being outcast. Once again, Russia chooses to support uniformity by not allowing children to not only force body adornments to match, but disallowing any noticeable body modification that could be seen in the classroom. Nowadays, a teacher could even be brought to trial as a result of a student’s disobedience, which proves the amount of tension that backs these rules (Sinelschikova, 2020). The fact that teachers would be arrested rather than the parents of a child puts emphasis on the level of responsibilities of the Russian teacher in a child’s life, and demonstrates that children can hold them at a familial level like they do with their parents. Thus, teachers have a larger role in raising a child in Russian culture. The social structure supported and raised by the government creates obedience through establishing a high level of control over the students, expecting strict levels of obedience that result in a strong affiliation between the teacher and student. A formal dress code is still used today because the Russian people have learned to prefer the usage of wearing school uniforms, which demonstrates a need to be presentable on both the individual level and a community level. The function of wearing school uniforms has become a way to save face over time due to the fact that the society disapproves of any dissenting attire. The face-need that drives uniformity is approval from others, which is common in collectivist cultures.

​

The last major aspect that must be grasped when understanding Russian culture is that interactions are very direct and explicit, leaving no room for misinterpretation. This feature of communication is an aspect of low-context culture according to Hall’s Taxonomy of low and high context. The reason directness is important is because the Russian classroom is very formal, especially with Russian students only being allowed to speak if they are called upon (Smith). If a student wishes to pose a question, it is mandatory that they respectfully raise their hand and wait for the teacher to call upon them. The teacher, having such power in the classroom, is seen as a pillar of stability to which students adhere with the most respect. Thus, the teacher is viewed as a powerful figure who reaffirms Hofstede’s dimension of high power distance in the classroom environment. Part of this is due to the fact that school officials such as the Principal and Assistant Principals are still required to teach at least one course in their careers, just like the teachers they manage (Clyde, 2014). This interaction eliminates the idea that the school operates with separate interests and adheres to the idea that the students must be prioritized above all else. The prerequisite for high administrative staff to teach children in the classrooms also is an effort to minimize power distance between people working together in the institution. While the hierarchy between teacher and student is strictly upheld, the prerequisite indicates an effort to minimize power distance between the highest positions in the school and the average teacher. As a result of the established power distance, students have grown to really respect their teachers. They respect their instructors to the degree that entire classrooms can be left unsupervised for hours, possibly even an entire day while their teachers are attending meetings and conferences elsewhere. (Clyde, 2014). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, performance in school in Russia is by no means a private matter. From punishment to how well a student does in school, details are orally given from the teacher to the student in front of the class in a confrontational manner. Thus, even the students know who performs well or poorly on a particular subject (Shevchenko, 2018). The delivery of the students’ grades is direct and instrumental to ensure that messages are clearly received, making the Russian conversational style speaker-responsible. The most notable feature about this style of delivery is that there is absolutely no privacy. This is done intentionally to compromise the maintenance of face. The social concept of face is critical for one’s reputation in Russia because the ability to be socially accepted is directly linked to how well a student performs in schooling. The fact that a student’s social face is able to be put at risk indicates that the Russian culture is a masculine culture according to Hofstede, putting the acquisition of wealth and success before the quality of life of its citizens. The grades that are given by the teachers are a numeric system from one to five with five representing excellent work and two representing insufficient work (Nuic, 2019). One is a number on the grading scale that is never used because it represents such an awful job on the student’s part. The four numbers traditionally used in grading are also used to divide students into four categories, which is determined by the student’s lowest grade in a class regardless of how well they do overall. This grading system also establishes a social hierarchy from Schwarz’ Taxonomy in the classroom, which often determines who may socialize with whom. Thus, keeping up good grades, which in turn maintains a good face, is critical for any Russian student.

​

In conclusion, the Russian school system is a very harsh environment for students growing up in the country. Presentation and performance are critical in the Russian environment because their schooling allows little room for students to get away with making mistakes, forming an environment where respect and performance in class are tied to a student’s social identity. Being a masculine, hierarchical, and collectivist culture, Russians strive from a very young age to do their part in society while maintaining the social systems and practices that have safeguarded their families and friends across generations. Thus, Russians emerge from their educational environment as if they were taught in a militaristic fashion and show a high respect for mentors or officials above them. Other places in the world can hardly believe or even think to thrive in such environments, but these strict social practices are the foundation of everyday Russian life in the Motherland.

 

References

​

Smith, I. (n.d.). Culture clash in the English as a Second language classroom. http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CJ12_smith.pdf 

 

Hays, J. (n.d.-b). Schools in Russia. Facts and Details. https://factsanddetails.com/russia/Education_Health_Transportation_Energy/sub9_6a/entry-5142.html 

 

Vick, J. (2024, August 13). The education system in Russia. Expatica Russia. https://www.expatica.com/ru/education/children-education/the-education-system-in-russia-104072/ 

 

Nuic, D. (2019, November 19). Everything you need to know about  ‚education in Russia’. Liden & Denz Russia. https://www.russiancourses.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-education-in-russia/ 

 

Clyde, J. (2014, April 26). The Russian Educational System vs. the American system. Learning the Global Language. https://globallanguagelearners.weebly.com/russia-travel-blog/the-russian-educational-system-vs-the-american-system 

 

Sinelschikova, Y. (2020, July 27). 5 things that were banned in Soviet schools. Russia Beyond. https://www.rbth.com/history/332490-things-banned-soviet-schools 

 

Shevchenko, N. (2018, May 4). 7 ways Russian schools differ from those in other countries. Russia Beyond. https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/328199-russian-schools-differ-from-american 

 

Popova, A. (2024, October 2). 10 facts about schools in the USSR. Russia Beyond. https://www.rbth.com/history/337864-10-facts-about-schools-ussr