Introduction

   In an era of increasing globalization, secondary education systems worldwide are undergoing transformations to meet international standards while preserving national identity. The internationalization of the curriculum is a key response to these global trends, aiming to prepare students for participation in the global knowledge economy while fostering intercultural competence. However, this shift raises critical questions about the balance between global competitiveness and national cultural preservation, as well as the challenges of implementing such reforms in diverse contexts.

   Kazakhstan has emerged as a compelling case study in this regard. Over the past two decades, the country has pursued curriculum internationalization as a national strategy, culminating in the establishment of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS)—a network of state-funded, elite secondary institutions designed to implement globally benchmarked curricula. NIS serves as a pilot model for broader national educational reforms, incorporating trilingual education (Kazakh, Russian, and English), international teaching staff, and alignment with global assessment standards such as PISA, TIMSS, IELTS, and SAT. While these efforts aim to enhance student outcomes and international mobility, they also raise concerns about cultural tensions, performativity pressures, and the potential replication of Western educational paradigms.

   This paper critically examines Kazakhstan’s curriculum internationalization through the lens of globalization, performativity, and global citizenship education. Drawing on theoretical frameworks from Leask (2015), Killick (2015), and Rizvi & Lingard (2010), the study addresses three key research questions:

1. Is there internationalization of the curriculum in Kazakhstan, and what are the primary drivers behind it?

2. What are the challenges and tensions associated with curriculum internationalization in the context of Kazakhstan?

3. How does it reconcile global competitiveness with national cultural preservation?

By exploring these questions, the study evaluates how NIS integrates global best practices while navigating the challenges of national identity preservation and systemic adaptation.

Curriculum Internationalization in a Global Context

   The distinction between internationalization and globalization in education is often debated. Internationalization is typically associated with cooperation, quality enhancement, and intercultural exchange, whereas globalization is linked to neoliberal policies, marketization, and the standardization of education (Cambridge, 2002; Killick, 2015). In practice, these forces are deeply intertwined, with internationalization often being a strategic response to globalization.

   Kazakhstan’s curriculum reforms reflect this dynamic. Since its independence from the Soviet Union, the country has aimed to integrate into the global education system, partly through participation in OECD and UNESCO initiatives. The establishment of NIS marked a turning point in Kazakhstan’s education policies, as these schools were designed not only to improve academic performance but also to foster intercultural competence and global competitiveness.

   A key element of NIS curriculum internationalization is its trilingual education policy, introduced in 2008. By incorporating Kazakh, Russian, and English as mediums of instruction, this policy aligns with broader global trends emphasizing multilingualism as a driver of international mobility and cross-cultural engagement (Hoskins & Sallah, 2011). Furthermore, NIS’s collaboration with international partners, including Cambridge Assessment and the University of Pennsylvania, has contributed to the integration of inquiry-based learning, research-oriented pedagogy, and project-based assessments, which are hallmarks of global education models.

   However, these internationalization efforts also face significant challenges. Critics argue that such reforms risk Westernizing Kazakhstan’s education system, reinforcing Western epistemologies and pedagogical norms at the expense of local educational traditions (Poore, 2005; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Moreover, the high-stakes testing culture driven by PISA and IELTS benchmarks has raised concerns about performativity pressures, potentially leading to teaching to the test rather than fostering deeper conceptual understanding (Ball, 1998; Wiseman & Baker, 2015).

Methodology This study employs a qualitative case study approach (Creswell, 2013) to investigate the internationalization of the Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) curriculum in Kazakhstan. A case study design is appropriate as it allows for an in-depth exploration of policy implementation and its broader implications within a specific institutional and national context (Yin, 2018). Data collection relies on three primary sources: policy documents, curriculum analysis, and secondary literature. Policy documents, including government white papers and NIS strategic plans, are analyzed to trace how Kazakhstan conceptualizes and implements curriculum internationalization. Curriculum analysis assesses the alignment of NIS’s educational programs with global education frameworks, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and language proficiency benchmarks like the International English Language Testing System (IELTS). This approach follows the tradition of comparative education research, which examines how national curricula integrate global standards (Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2014). To further interrogate the ideological and discursive dimensions of internationalization, the study employs critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 2010). CDA provides a framework for understanding how language, power, and ideology intersect in education policymaking (van Dijk, 2009). By analyzing government rhetoric, strategic educational frameworks, and stakeholder perspectives, the study explores how Kazakhstan navigates tensions between national identity and global competitiveness. Previous research has highlighted how post-Soviet states balance linguistic and cultural sovereignty with international educational aspirations (Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008). Through this methodological approach, the study positions NIS within broader global education trends, critically assessing whether its curriculum reforms signify substantive internationalization or symbolic alignment with global benchmarks.

Findings and Discussion Kazakhstan’s curriculum internationalization aims to enhance global competitiveness, with NIS students encouraged to meet international benchmarks and pursue higher education abroad (Chankseliani, 2016). The integration of standardized tests (IELTS, SAT, PISA) aligns with global education indicators but has also led to performativity-driven practices (Ball, 2012). Teachers and students report pressure to achieve high scores, often at the expense of critical thinking and creativity (Wiseman & Baker, 2015), raising concerns about whether this approach fosters true global citizenship or reinforces global education hierarchies. Cultural tensions also emerge, particularly regarding trilingual education. While promoting multilingual competence, the increasing use of English in science and mathematics raises fears about the marginalization of Kazakh as an academic language (Yakavets et al., 2023). Additionally, the integration of international faculty has led to pedagogical clashes, as student-centered, inquiry-based teaching contrasts with traditional, teacher-led instruction (Shamshidinova, Ayubayeva & Bridges, 2014). Despite these challenges, NIS’s introduction of Global Perspectives and Project Work fosters research, analytical, and intercultural skills, aligning with global citizenship education (Leask, 2015; Hayden & Thompson, 1995). However, true global citizenship requires more than curricular changes—it demands a broader shift in how students perceive their global roles. Kazakhstan’s policies remain rooted in economic rationales, prioritizing global market readiness over transformative global citizenship (Brandenburg & De Wit, 2011). Conclusion Kazakhstan’s curriculum internationalization, exemplified by NIS, reflects a strategic response to globalization, balancing academic excellence with global mobility. However, tensions between international benchmarks, national identity, and performativity pressures reveal the complexities of reform. While NIS fosters multilingualism, intercultural competence, and global awareness, its long-term success depends on how effectively Kazakhstan integrates global best practices while preserving its cultural and linguistic heritage.

Ball, S. J. (2012, March) ‘Show me the money! Neoliberalism at work in education’, FORUM: For Promoting 3–19 Comprehensive Education, 54(1), pp. 23-28. Ball, S.J. (1998) ‘Big Policies/Small World: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy’, Comparative Education, 34(2), pp. 119-130. Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2011) ‘The end of internationalization’, International Higher Education, (62). Cambridge, J. (2002) ‘Global product branding and international education’, Journal of Research in International Education, 1(2), pp. 227-243. Chankseliani, M., & Hessel, G. (2016a). Case studies of the most popular European destinations for mobile students from Russia, Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia. Available at https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:307e125e-6def-4b5e-8c3e-a984a6ddd2d1. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (2nd ed.). Routledge. Hayden, M.C. & Thompson, J.J. (1995) ‘Perceptions of international education: a preliminary study’, International Review of Education, 41(5), pp. 389-404. Hoskins, B. & Sallah, M. (2011) ‘Developing intercultural competence in Europe: the challenges’, Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(2), pp. 113-125. Killick, D. (2015). Developing the global student: higher education in an era of globalization. London: Routledge. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. New York: Routledge. Phillips, D., & Schweisfurth, M. (2014). Comparative and International Education: An Introduction to Theory, Method, and Practice. Bloomsbury. Poore, P. (2005) ‘School culture: The space between the bars; the silence between the notes’, Journal of Research in International Education, 4(3), pp. 351-361. Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Abingdon: Routledge. Shamshidinova, K., Ayubayeva, N. & Bridges, D. (2014). Implementing radical change: Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools as agents of change In D. Bridges (ed.) Educational reform and internationalisation: the case of school reform in Kazakhstan (pp. 71-82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silova, I., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2008). How NGOs React: Globalization and Education Reform in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Mongolia. Kumarian Press. van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 62-86). SAGE. Wiseman, W. A. & Baker, D.P. (2015) ‘The worldwide explosion of internationalized education policy’, Global Trends in Educational Policy, 6, pp. 1-21 Yakavets, N., Winter, L., Kambatyrova, A., & Ramazanova, A. (2023). Mapping Educational Change in Kazakhstan (pp. 95–112). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). SAGE.