Educational inequality is a nuanced and multi-dimensional phenomenon (Ball, 2021), requiring a comprehensive exploration, including that at a regional/subnational level. This subnational analysis is crucial not only due to its political implications but also for the potential transformative impact on addressing social injustices. Existing literature delves into educational inequality at different geographic tiers, encompassing administrative regions (Thomas, 2001; Edgerton et al, 2008), broader geographic regions (Qian and Smyth, 2008; Gumus and Chudgar, 2016), and district levels (Bramley and Fletcher, 1995; Hogrebe et al, 2008; Ataç, 2019). Additionally, studies explore rural/urban divides within countries (Qian and Smyth, 2008; Smanova, 2021). This research specifically focuses on regional educational inequality in Kazakhstan, using international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) as a basis.

Kazakhstan exhibits substantial achievement gaps among students in different regions. Recent ILSAs reveal that students in Western and Southern regions lag behind their counterparts in science, reading, and math by 2-3 years (IAC, 2020; OECD, 2023). Such regional disparities are not unique to Kazakhstan, as OECD experts acknowledge similar trends in other European countries, emphasizing the significance of subnational results in educational assessments (OECD, 2019, p. 63). In Kazakhstan, these differences are compounded by complex historical legacies, varying quality of life, cultural traditions, and even primary language differences, with Russian-speaking regions consistently outperforming their counterparts.

Kazakhstan is a large transcontinental country with a territory greater than that of the whole Western Europe, and its European part including two regional capitals. Bordering two world superpowers, as well as culturally close Central Asian neighbours, it is, historically, a land of contradictions - geographic, political and cultural, which seemed to coexist peacefully until recently (Rees et al, 2021).

While it is rarely mentioned in the European post-colonial academic discourse, Kazakhstan’s unique geopolitical and cultural landscape makes it an ideal case study for understanding the impact of Soviet/Russian colonial influence on contemporary life, including educational disparities (Rees et al, 2021). For example, recent violent unrests which shook the country’s leadership, originated in regions with prevailing share of Kazakh-speaking population and higher levels of socio-economic inequality (Kudaibergenova and Laruelle, 2022). Cultural differences between Southern and Northern regions further shape local attitudes towards education (Diener, 2015; Koch and White, 2016). Despite drastic socio-economic variations across regions, conventional explanations fall short, with both overpopulated, economically poor Southern regions and underpopulated, oil-rich West Kazakhstan demonstrating similarly low academic achievement.

Tsai et al's (2017) assertion that educational policy should strive for both academic excellence and equity resonates with Coleman's (1975) call for addressing the unequal impact of external environments on educational opportunities. This study posits two central research questions: the extent to which regional educational inequality is addressed in national policy and the factors associated with student achievement on national and regional levels, particularly whether these factors vary between regions.

Rooted in the critical educational research paradigm, this study combines Habermas's (1972) knowledge-constitutive interests, encompassing technical knowledge derived from a positivist approach, hermeneutic knowledge acquired through interpretive methodologies, and critical knowledge aimed at emancipating disadvantaged groups (Gibson, 1986). The theoretical framework draws significantly from Habermas's notion of lifeworld and Bourdieu's concepts of cultural and social capital and 'habitus' (Edgerton and Roberts, 2014). These frameworks provide a foundation for exploring causal factors in this educational inequality research, despite Giroux's (1983) caution about the overdetermination of human agency in Bourdieu's works. Caro et al’s (2014) research relying on ILSA data and employing Bourdieu’s three forms of capital, Bernstein’s language code theory and Coleman’s (1988) definition of social capital is one of the primary examples used in this research.

This research adopts a mixed methods approach to enhance the reliability and validity of data, employing methodological triangulation (Cohen et al, 2018) to address both the 'what' and 'why' questions surrounding regional educational inequality in Kazakhstan. Utilizing PISA 2018 results, four regions were strategically identified, comprising one top-performing, one average, and two low-performing regions. Within each region, a total of four schools were randomly sampled based on predetermined criteria, encompassing rural/urban and Kazakh/Russian language distinctions. The data collection process within each school involved a multi-faceted approach, incorporating interviews with school directors, parent focus groups, and supervised online teacher surveys. Additionally, at the regional level, interviews were conducted with education heads. The research extended further to encompass top-level data collection, incorporating an expert focus group and interviews with two high-ranking policy makers. To sum up, the research generated 37 transcripts from interviews conducted across schools and regions, survey results for 4 regions with over 200 teachers in total, 16 parent focus groups, one expert focus group and two policy maker interviews. This comprehensive dataset offers a unique opportunity to analyze the multifaceted factors influencing student achievement in Kazakhstan from diverse perspectives, spanning all levels of educational policy. The mixed methods approach not only enhances the robustness of the findings but also enables a nuanced exploration of the complex interplay of factors contributing to regional educational inequalities. The triangulation of methods and the depth of data collection underscore the depth and richness of the study, providing valuable insights for policy development and interventions aimed at addressing educational disparities in Kazakhstan.

Currently in the analysis stage, I offer preliminary insights into potential research findings based on the initial data collection and coding efforts. Aligned with the theoretical framework guiding this study, the questionnaire for interviews and online teacher surveys focused on three major prompted themes extensively discussed in educational inequality research: the influence of family (SES, family ethos, etc.), the influence of school (including Teaching quality, School resources, etc.), and the impact of student motivation on academic achievement. Open-ended questions also sought respondents' general opinions on the primary factors influencing student outcomes. Initial results from Nvivo coding indicate a consistent pattern across all regions and respondent categories. Teaching quality and Family ethos, emphasizing the quality of relationships and emotional well-being at home, emerged as pivotal factors influencing student achievement. However, noteworthy variations include both region-specific and national policy-level impact factors in each region. I.e, various specific factors like economic welfare or cultural predispositions (attitudes to education, corruption) may moderate the effects Teaching quality or Family influence. Hypothesizing based on these findings, it appears that Teaching quality may emerge as the paramount factor influencing student achievement universally. However, contextual nuances such as socio-economic status, cultural differences, and the quality of regional educational management, coupled with suboptimal oversight of the national education system, contribute to regional disparities and further reinforce the observed achievement gap. This preliminary hypothesis underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of the interplay between universal and context-specific factors, shedding light on the intricate dynamics contributing to regional educational inequalities in Kazakhstan. As the analysis progresses, a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of these dynamics will emerge, informing policy recommendations and interventions for addressing these disparities.

Ball, S. (2021). The Great Education Debate (1976–2021). Thomas, S. (2001). Dimensions of Secondary School Effectiveness: Comparative Analyses Across Regions. Edgerton, J., & Roberts, L. (2014). Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational inequality. Qian, X., & Smyth, R. (2008). Measuring regional inequality of education in China: Widening coast–inland gap or widening rural–urban gap? Gumus, S., & Chudgar, A. (2016). Factors affecting school participation in Turkey: an analysis of regional differences. Compare: Bramley, G., & Fletcher, C. (1995). Locality Types and School Types: Towards Baselines for Improvement and Effectiveness in Secondary Schools. Hogrebe, M. C. et al (2008). Examining Regional Science Attainment and School—Teac her Resources Using GIS. Education and Urban Society, 40(5), 570–589. Ataç, E. (2019). Modeling Educational Inequalities: Class, Academic Achievement, and Regional Differences in Turkey. Smanova, N. (2021). Can We Overcome the Achievement Gap between Urban and Rural Students in Kazakhstan through School Resources: Evidence from PISA OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris Rees, K. et al (2021). Territorial Belonging and Homeland Disjuncture: Uneven Territorialisations in Kazakhstan. Kudaibergenova, D. & Laruelle, M. (2022). Making sense of the January 2022 protests in Kazakhstan: failing legitimacy, culture of protests, and elite readjustments. Diener, A. (2015). Assessing potential Russian irredentism and separatism in Kazakhstan’s northern oblasts. Koch, N., & White, K. (2016). Cowboys, Gangsters, and Rural Bumpkins: Constructing the “Other” in Kazakhstan’s “Texas”. Kopeyeva, A. (2020). Understanding Factors behind Regional Inequality in Education in Kazakhstan, Central Asian Affairs, 7(1), 38-79. Tsai, S., Smith, M., & Hauser, R. (2017). Families, Schools, and Student Achievement Inequality. Sociology of Education, 90(1), 64-88. Coleman, J. (1975). Equal Educational Opportunity: A Definition. Oxford Review of Education, 1(1), 25-29. Coleman, J. et al (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Washington. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. Beacon Press. Gibson, R. (1986). Critical Theory and Education. Hodder and Stoughton. Edgerton, J., & Roberts, L. (2014). Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational inequality. Theory And Research In Education, 12(2), 193-220. Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New Sociology of Education: A Critical Analysis. Caro, D. et al (2013). Cultural, social, and economic capital constructs in international assessments: an evaluation using exploratory structural equation modeling.