Tibetan regionality and educational divides: A survey study of Tibetan-medium schooling in Kham (Eastern Tibet)

• In Event: Highlighted session: Rethinking learning sites, communities, and what is educationally valuable in Amdo and Kham Tibetan regions

Proposal

Tibetan communities are usually grouped and compared in relationship to Chinese administrative units rather than their indigenous regions in previous studies of Tibetan education in China. I argue that this does disservice to understanding Tibetan indigenous perceptions of ‘Tibetanness’ and regional identities, as well as the realities of accessing and experiencing Tibetan-medium schooling (using Tibetan language to teach all subjects except Chinese language) across Tibetan regions in China. Indigenous conceptualizations group Tibet into three principal regions, each with distinct languages, cultures, and histories: Amdo, Kham, and U-Tsang. None of these regions corresponds exactly to any of the current provincial borders created by the PRC in the decades after its founding in 1949. The three regions in fact extend into five provinces of the PRC, all of which have different governments and policies, which entail diverse approaches to delivering education to Tibetan students.

Likewise, the gaps in Tibetan-medium schooling across Tibetan communities have been analyzed along the lines of administrative units rather than indigenous regions. Rationales for the imbalance in Tibetan-medium education across the regions have thus been conceptualized as mainly the result of divergent language policy implementation in different provinces (Bass 1998). However, despite differing provincial policies implementation in state schooling, consistent patterns show that Tibetan-medium education is better developed in Amdo, which is absorbed into three provinces, compared to other regions (Zenz, 2013). Kham seemingly has less Tibetan-medium schools and classes than Amdo regardless of which province a given part of Kham is administered by− Qinghai, TAR, Yunnan, or Sichuan. Thus variances in provincial politics alone do not explain the Tibetan-medium schooling gaps across Tibetan regions. Despite this, research on Tibetan-medium education is confined to the borders of Chinese administrative units of Tibet while the significance of indigenous Tibetan regionality and their divisions under the Chinese state has rarely been considered in the study of Tibetan education in China (Bass,1998; Zenz, 2013; Yang, 2017; Choepal, 2014).

Therefore, I paint a larger picture of Tibetan-medium education in Kham and to explain how territorial divisions of Kham may offer new understandings on Tibetan-medium schooling in Kham. To do so, I rely on two types of primary data sources: a WeChat-based survey of key informants in different parts of Kham and document analysis of previous research on Tibetan-medium education. The survey aims to inquire into the availability of Tibetan-medium schools/classes in elementary and secondary levels in Kham. The document analysis aids in answering how previous research has conceptualized the underdevelopment of Tibetan-medium education in Kham.

Kham and its borders are contextualized in the larger literature of Tibetan history (Phutsok, 2006; Gardner, 2003). The significance of indigenous regions and their borders are contested in the Tibetan public discourse, yet they also “maintain the very fabric of [the] Tibetan world” (Kapstein 1998, p.145). The paper thus aims to shed light on the significance of Tibetan indigenous regionality, the implications of its disintegration under the Chinese state with regarding education, as well as methodological considerations in studying indigenous communities placed in new political territorial configurations.

Author

• Tashi Dekyid, University of Virginia